quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

I don't personally like most of the pantheon changes.

Deities can and do change, they come and go, they evolve over time (alongside their pantheons), some even maintain different aspects which blur or extend the normal boundaries of their powers/portfolios, a few even maintain deceptive or disposable aspects while attempting to increase their own power or diminish that of their competitors. "Living" pantheons aren't stagnant, I'm okay with this.

But my issue is that deities and powers have been largely constant across ages and aeons. The coming and going and changing of deities is usually described in the context of myth, things have remained largely constant across untold generations. Then, suddenly, we have some game edition changes which accelerate deity turnover in the Realms to a frantic pace - a year, a decade, a century - pantheons and deities which had "stable" hierarchies and stations since (almost) the beginning of time itself seem to shuffle and jostle and veer around arbitrarily, over and over again, within a single lifespan. Pantheons are not supposed to be fashion statements, they're supposed to be the higher fabric of the world and the cosmos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storyteller Hero

There is also a goddess named Selan the Beautiful Moon in the lands of Zakhara, (...) likely either an aspect of Selune or Selune herself with a slightly different name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LordofBones

The problem with a lot of the whole "let's keep the higher planes a mystery huehuehue" is that people have actually gone on and explored these places, interviewed their denizens and in some cases opened up settlements. Hell, there are many deities who allow visitors into their domains as long as they keep the peace; Sung Chiang rules over the greatest black market in the planes, while Waukeen's realm is one of four of the greatest trading centers in the planes.

It's when you want to keep your players constantly guessing that the whole thing falls apart. What's the point of planar lore if everything gets reshuffled every edition? There are only so many cataclysms the Realms can take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomCosta

Set became Zehir in 4E to survive as one of the Faerunian pantheon.

That said, I like how the gods have morphed between editions. I think it keeps them more mysterious as they should be and opens up tons of potential storylines. Are Sehanine and Selune the same or Talos and Gruumsh or Helm and the related demihuman god of almost every pantheon or Lathander and Amaunator? Could be, might not. Do faithful who follow heresies still get divine power, seemingly so, but from where? What about the faithful of dead gods? What really happens to the faithless and false? What happens to the souls of the dead? Is the Raven Queen involved, what about Myrkul, Jergal, and Kelemvor? Do they go through the Shadowfell or the Fugue Plane or where? Malyk a separate god now or Zandilar? Is Moander back? Is Entropy a god? What's the difference between a god, primordial and the most ancient beings of the Far Realm? What about archfey and lords of Ravenloft? And what exactly are the githyanki and other creatures building their homes on in the Astral Plane? Is Anubis still guarding them and why? What about the gods of Oerth and Greyhawk; do they exist in the Realms? Are Ptah and Celestian worshiped in Realmspace? Who is Ao and does he even exist? Are the outer planes a tree or a great wheel? Can a mortal really kill a god and how does one become a god? And on and on and on. The thing is these paradoxes existed within the editions too, not just between them.


There are a hundred and one answers and a story in each. Schism and opportunities everywhere, and a chance for players to find the right divine concept (if that's what they are looking for) no matter what it is without being wrong and DM's to come up with some pretty cool stories for those very same players.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

It gets even better when the church of the great spaghetti mother and the church of the great oatmeal mother have the same holy scriptures and even the same iconography but they cannot abide that the other church uses the wrong name. Both churches then slaughter each other for using the wrong name until the true church of the great spaghetti monster wipes them both out for not using the right type of pasta at religious festivals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

It gets even better when the church of the great spaghetti mother and the church of the great oatmeal mother have the same holy scriptures and even the same iconography but they cannot abide that the other church uses the wrong name. Both churches then slaughter each other for using the wrong name until the true church of the great spaghetti monster wipes them both out for not using the right type of pasta at religious festivals.

---

This kind of stuff I don't personally find interesting, like at all. RL is already full of that kind of sh*t, unless the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a deity of war and carnage, of intolerance and violence, I don't see why conflicts over this sort of stuff should happen beyond the size of a handful of fanatical, empty-minded worshipers. Things like intolerance don't need to be IN YOUR FACE at any opportunity that remotely allows it.

Btw, I don't mind that some cultures worship the same deity under different names. What pisses me off is when, all of sudden, WoTC decides that deities that have always been separate entities "were actually the same all along!!11!!" Even when that makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever (or when a deity decides to change their whole outlook overnight, or things like that). Consistency is not bad, I'm really puzzled that this notion is becoming so popular tbh.

If the 4e version had been "some elves believe that Selune is an aspect of Sehanine, and some humans believe that Sehanine is an aspect of Selune" I wouldn't have cared or minded. However, Sehanine=Selune, Sune=Hanali, Talos=Gruumsh, and so on don't make sense at all, and I'm glad to see that kind of stuff re-retconned again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Well the point was not really about holy war it was about possibilities arising out of difference that cannot happen under the current model.

Under the current model everyone worships the God in the exact same way because all priests preach in the exact same way because they were told to do so by the God himself.
It is difficult to conceive how heretical cults can exist under the current model because the God has direct control of his church and will not allow any action (such as inter religious strife) unless it is part of his portfolio, plus that God can hear any time his name is invoked and read the thoughts of anyone invoking his name (and heretic priests must invoke his name if masquerading as a legitimate worshipper).

It all depends on how you like your game. The current God centric model fits very nicely with the bland 5e where everything is black or white and in large single colour codes blocks (all orcs are evil, all lolth worshippers do x, all shadovar look like y, all people from cormyr behave in such a manner).
I like my games to be as realistic as possible where every organisation is filled with nice people and selfish people and the occasional psychopath, where people try and better themselves sometimes by screwing over superiors or underlings. Where people in power are generally there because they exploited their way to the top and are the least worthy of that power. Intrigue and lies abound and yet through it all good endures and sometimes succeeds (but not all the time).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Well the point was not really about holy war it was about possibilities arising out of difference that cannot happen under the current model.

Under the current model everyone worships the God in the exact same way because all priests preach in the exact same way because they were told to do so by the God himself.
It is difficult to conceive how heretical cults can exist under the current model because the God has direct control of his church and will not allow any action (such as inter religious strife) unless it is part of his portfolio, plus that God can hear any time his name is invoked and read the thoughts of anyone invoking his name (and heretic priests must invoke his name if masquerading as a legitimate worshipper).

It all depends on how you like your game. The current God centric model fits very nicely with the bland 5e where everything is black or white and in large single colour codes blocks (all orcs are evil, all lolth worshippers do x, all shadovar look like y, all people from cormyr behave in such a manner).
I like my games to be as realistic as possible where every organisation is filled with nice people and selfish people and the occasional psychopath, where people try and better themselves sometimes by screwing over superiors or underlings. Where people in power are generally there because they exploited their way to the top and are the least worthy of that power. Intrigue and lies abound and yet through it all good endures and sometimes succeeds (but not all the time).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Many times I've seen people on this forum shout down another's idea saying that God x wouldn't allow it because it goes against the portfolio or ideals of that God. If the God has the omniscience to know about it and the power to stop it then how can any deviance be allowed.

The church of vhaeraun is now subservient to lolth and his priests protect the lolthites and yet already it has been argued that this could not happen because vhaeraun himself would not allow it.

I proposed subverting the power of an artefact for good to evil and was told gods would not allow it.

You can't have both sides of the argument. If a god can control organisations and events and people to stop what others want to develop then it also cannot allow the schism already existing. Or alternatively a god has no control and it is all up to individual people and everything can change and be warped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Many times I've seen people on this forum shout down another's idea saying that God x wouldn't allow it because it goes against the portfolio or ideals of that God. If the God has the omniscience to know about it and the power to stop it then how can any deviance be allowed.

The church of vhaeraun is now subservient to lolth and his priests protect the lolthites and yet already it has been argued that this could not happen because vhaeraun himself would not allow it.

I proposed subverting the power of an artefact for good to evil and was told gods would not allow it.

You can't have both sides of the argument. If a god can control organisations and events and people to stop what others want to develop then it also cannot allow the schism already existing. Or alternatively a god has no control and it is all up to individual people and everything can change and be warped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Many times I've seen people on this forum shout down another's idea saying that God x wouldn't allow it because it goes against the portfolio or ideals of that God. If the God has the omniscience to know about it and the power to stop it then how can any deviance be allowed.

The church of vhaeraun is now subservient to lolth and his priests protect the lolthites and yet already it has been argued that this could not happen because vhaeraun himself would not allow it.

I proposed subverting the power of an artefact for good to evil and was told gods would not allow it.

You can't have both sides of the argument. If a god can control organisations and events and people to stop what others want to develop then it also cannot allow the schism already existing. Or alternatively a god has no control and it is all up to individual people and everything can change and be warped.

---

Small heresies can easily go under the radar, but if a heresy gets large, then yes: the deity is bound to notice and to do something, because the deity does indeed stand for certain ideals and values, they are strongly tied to them, and it only makes sense for them to act when things get out of hand in large numbers. Otherwise, what would even be the point of having deities as entities? At that point, if deities are to be permanently inactive, just have RL-like religion and be done with it. Personally, I don't like it, and the Realms have never been like RL.

The thing about Vhaeraun is not just that he wouldn't allow it, it's that his own character has been demolished, and all that he and his followers have always been, all of sudden started doing the *exact opposite*. Seriously, "silent, obedient" to describe Vhaeraun&followers? You might as well have an entirety different character. Besides, the large problem is that such BS was extended to his whole faith, not just a bunch of dissidents.

That said, I apologize if it seemed that I shot you down, I didn't mean to. I was just replying to your claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Many times I've seen people on this forum shout down another's idea saying that God x wouldn't allow it because it goes against the portfolio or ideals of that God. If the God has the omniscience to know about it and the power to stop it then how can any deviance be allowed.

The church of vhaeraun is now subservient to lolth and his priests protect the lolthites and yet already it has been argued that this could not happen because vhaeraun himself would not allow it.

I proposed subverting the power of an artefact for good to evil and was told gods would not allow it.

You can't have both sides of the argument. If a god can control organisations and events and people to stop what others want to develop then it also cannot allow the schism already existing. Or alternatively a god has no control and it is all up to individual people and everything can change and be warped.

---

quote:

---

Just have another, enemy deity (or Archdevil, or Demon Lord, or whatever) support it while posing as the main god. That way, even though--say--Selune could be able to disapprove of her followers killing in her name, stop granting spell, etc... (like a good-hearted deity would, because this whole good deities being actually a******s in disguise is honestly tiresome) Shar could secretly support the heretics and even fuel a Shar=Selune heresy, without WotC coming down and saying "Shar has been Selune all along!!!11 Oh, there are 3435564355 problems with this? Well, the gods are mysteeeeerious"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

The problem is that gods if a god is dependant upon a portfolio and obedience of worshippers and have the option to control people to the degree that many believe then they would almost certainly do so.

Tyr is the god of law, he cannot allow his faithful to break the law and will prevent and punish those that try. Vhaeraun cannot allow his church to suddenly change into something that supports Lolth and so it cannot happen otherwise Vhaeraun vastly loses his power and risks deific death.

If a being has the power to be aware of almost anything and achieve almost anything then they will almost certainly do so to preserve their own existence.

Or the alternative is that they are not all aware and people can generally behave as they desire allowing all manner of people into a church (the greedy and self serving, the normal and unsure, and the fanatically pious). All a god can do is try and influence things to their desire through signs and portents and the occasional divine servant.

---