Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ephealy May 01, 2006 14:42:22	Giantcraft describes the origins of the Ogre race as the result of an affair between Vaprak and Othea, the consort (wife) of Annam. I'm wondering if there is a distinctive GH legend / origin myth on where the ogre race came from, or if the FRCS one is the accepted story. If the FRCS one is generally accepted, how do we account for the fact that neither Annam or Othea are considered GH deities? Did Vaprak bring some of his "children" over to Oerth at some point? That said, is there an accepted timeline in GH as to when the ogre race came on the scene - vis-a-vis the elves, humans, et al? Greyhawk Adventures mentions that, "the Elvenfolk (weren't) the first in the Flanaess; there were others in times so far past that the very shape of the lands has since changed." That's all I could find, though.
#2 ripvanwormer May 01, 2006 15:25:42	"Vaprak, the ogre god, also has some worshipers among hill giants, just as some ogres also worship Grolantor, and it seems probable that in some way Vaprak may be the offspring of a giantish god, most likely Annam once more. Some tales tell of a hideous, vastly tall ogress who used magic to conceal her appearance in order to attract Annam, who mated with her to engender Vaprak." - Monster Mythology, 74. You could use that myth in Greyhawk instead, saying that ogres were the descendents of Vaprak and just about anything else (a mortal giantess, for example). Annam should be considered a Greyhawk deity, in my opinion. He's mentioned in the Living Greyhawk Deities document along with several other giantish deities. I don't think the Flan, Suel, Baklunish, Oeridian, or common human deities of Oerth are as appropriate for giants to worship as Monster Mythology's giant pantheon. It seems to me that if the Flan can have their own pantheon, giant culture can have one too.
#3 Mortepierre May 01, 2006 17:34:51	Giantcraft describes the origins of the Ogre race as the result of an affair between Vaprak and Othea, the consort (wife) of Annam. I'm wondering if there is a distinctive GH legend / origin myth on where the ogre race came from, or if the FRCS one is the accepted story. If the FRCS one is generally accepted, how do we account for the fact that neither Annam or Othea are considered GH deities? Did Vaprak bring some of his "children" over to Oerth at some point? Annam is one of those "multi-settings" deities as evidenced by the sentence in Monster Mythology which states he witnessed crucial events on (among other worlds) Oerth and Faerun. That said, there is no reason to suppose (or even accept) that what happened on the latter had any influence over the former. The giant nations of Faerun had a very different destiny from those of Oerth, after all. As ripvanwormer suggests, you should use the myth as described in Monster Mythology. While that accessory wasn't written explicitly for GH, it's safe to say it "fits" given Oerth is the "core" world (even back in 2e). Plus, since GH predates FR (as an official setting at any rate), transposing stuff from the latter to the former would strike me as incongruous. That said, is there an accepted timeline in GH as to when the ogre race came on the scene - vis-a-vis the elves, humans, et al? Greyhawk Adventures mentions that, "the Elvenfolk (weren't) the first in the Flanaess; there were others in times so far past that the very shape of the lands has since changed." That's all I could find, though. There is no accepted timeline of non-human civilizations in GH.. yet. Bits & pieces have been published here and there if one knows where to look. For instance, it has been established that there were "elder races" (the aboleths for example) though one shouldn't try to "force" a link to the Iqua-Tel'Quessir of FR's fame. Furthermore, there is "elder" and then there is elder. The reptilian demon-worshipping civilization of the Amedio for instance is old compared to modern-day empires of the Flanaess but relatively young when compared to some antediluvian ruins. All in all, a fascinating subject but a still very much "open" one... (though not for lack of trying as various articles on CF show)
#4 vormaerin May 01, 2006 22:05:04	Vaprak is certainly a reasonable deity to have in GH, though with my preference for fewer deities I have him be an aspect of Erythnul rather than an entirely separate god. Annam is one of those setting non specific deities as far as I am aware. No reason not to add him to GH if you like to do that sort of thing. However, using the Living Greyhawk Dieties document as a justification for including Annam is kind of weak. That document includes pretty much every god anyone has ever heard of, including many that were quite specifically created for another setting (the drow gods, for instance. GH drow material always said the drow worshipped Lolth and other Demon lords). Obviously a DM can include or exclude whomever they want. But its important to realize that the LG diety list is about as liberal as it is possible to get with its inclusions.
#5 ripvanwormer May 02, 2006 1:31:23	including many that were quite specifically created for another setting (the drow gods, for instance. I don't think that's correct. While it's true that the earliest sources on drow said only that they worshipped demon lords, Kiaransalee and Zinzerena first appeared in Monster Mythology, a generic supplement by Carl "From the Ashes" Sargent. Keptolo first appeared (along with Kiaransali and Zinzerena) in a Living Greyhawk Journal article by Fred Weining. Kiaransalee's first major appearance in an adventure was in Planescape's Dead Gods which placed her worshippers in, yes, Oerth's Vault of the Drow. Zinzerena doesn't exist in the Forgotten Realms setting, except as an aspect of Lolth. Although Vhaeraun first appeared in FR's Drow of the Underdark (with Eilistraee, Ghaunadaur, and Lolth; of the three new drow gods, only Vhaeraun was imported to genericdom). I wouldn't consider him a Greyhawk deity, personally, as he wasn't mentioned in the LGJ article and his portfolio overlaps Keptolo's. I'm certainly not claiming that the Living Greyhawk Deities list is an unimpeachable source, but it does represent some evidence of a Greyhawk connection if evidence is desired. For me, thematic concerns - I tend to prefer each culture to have its own distinct pantheon as opposed to a Dragonlance-like group of cross-racial deities - outweigh everything else.
#6 vormaerin May 02, 2006 20:42:27	I'm certainly not claiming that the Living Greyhawk Deities list is an unimpeachable source, but it does represent some evidence of a Greyhawk connection if evidence is desired. For me, thematic concerns - I tend to prefer each culture to have its own distinct pantheon as opposed to a Dragonlance-like group of cross-racial deities - outweigh everything else. I think that is where we will disagree. I think that adding gods just to give every race their own private set is unnecessary and perhaps even actively bad. When you get to the point that you have more gods than the DM can actually put real thought and life into, then you have too many, IMHO. Sure, you can have Zeus, Odin, Enlil, and Indra all as separate gods in a campaign. But I would rather have one Sky Father god with a bunch of cultural reskins/avatars instead of a band of 'gods' squabbling over the same portfolio. Unless I was deliberately running the campaign with a "Hercules/Xena" type attitude towards the divine.
#7 ripvanwormer May 02, 2006 21:20:41	Sure, you can have Zeus, Odin, Enlil, and Indra all as separate gods in a campaign. But I would rather have one Sky Father god with a bunch of cultural reskins/avatars instead of a band of 'gods' squabbling over the same portfolio. So, in your campaign, are Phaulkon and Velnius the same being? Or Ulaa and Jascar, Bleredd and Fortubo, Nerull and Mictlantecuhtli, Nerull and Wee Jas, Boccob and Wee Jas, Heironeous and Hextor, or Pelor, Lydia, and Pholtus? The gods Gygax designed were deliberately made with many overlapping and sometimes nearly identical portfolios so that PCs could have a wide variety of choices. This is brilliant design, in my opinion. More gods are nearly always better, improving both player choice and DM versimilitude.
#8 vormaerin May 02, 2006 23:12:32	I don't see how it adds to "DM verissimilitude" at all. Sure, there were lots of gods in the real world that were quite similar (see list of sky gods above, for example). But generally speaking they didn't interact with each other culturally. And when they did, syncretism was a very strong force. Nor do I see a value in having a choice between two hundred gods who are little more than stat blocks compared to a small number who are given a great deal of attention. FWIW, I largely use the '83 boxed set list. And, except for Mictantlecuhtli, no I have not amalgamated those gods you mention. With the exception of the four or five "hill & mountain" gods, I don't really see them as overlapping. Although Phaulkon does have 'wind and clouds' as part of his porfolio, there is nothing in his write up that really indicates he's primarily considered a weather god like Velnius. Rather, he is mainly an avian and archery god. For the hill and mountain gods, I just spent alot of time and effort working out how they are different from each other at the practical level (aka the 'religion'). Could I do that to further explain how Dumathoin is different from Fortubo? Or to explain what Hanali Celanil adds that Myhriss doesn't? Probably, if I had infinite time and creativity. I definitely don't have the former. Simply put, I'd rather not have gods who just exist on a list somewhere and don't matter otherwise. And the '83 list is pretty much at or above the limit of number of gods I can juggle interestingly.
#9 ripvanwormer May 02, 2006 23:26:54	I don't see how it adds to "DM verissimilitude" at all. Because I, as a DM, can do interesting things with Stronmaus that I can't do with Velnius, and different things with Io that I can't do with Bahamut. Oh, sure, I can artificially mash them together, but I feel that limits things unnecessarily. But generally speaking they didn't interact with each other culturally. In most cases, they don't in the Flanaess either. Different people worship Mictlantecuhtli than worship Nerull. Different people worship Velnius than worship Phaulkon. Elves don't worship Myrhiss and humans don't worship Hanali Celanil. Nor do I see a value in having a choice between two hundred gods who are little more than stat blocks compared to a small number who are given a great deal of attention. That's a false choice. Any god who a PC picks as a patron will get more attention. And there's a lot of information on nonhuman gods, much more than there is on human gods in many cases. So there's not a chance that any of them will be little more than stat blocks. Probably, if I had infinite time and creativity. I definitely don't have the former. That's fine; I'm not criticizing your decision, just defending my own preferences.
#10 vormaerin May 03, 2006 0:34:34	Don't recall attacking your preference. In fact, I quite clearly recall saying that "while it can be done that way, its not the way I like to do it." Well, I did say having more gods in the campaign than the DM can keep a handle on is actively bad, but what that number is varies from DM to DM. If you have the wherewithal to make the several hundred gods on the LG list interesting and distinctive, more power to you. I did attack the validity of the LG list as a source of Greyhawk imprimatur, since I consider that essentially an IMC artifact a well as having, imho, the very loosest possible definition for "of greyhawk". Anyway, as for the rest of your comments, I just have a couple responses. One, there may be a bunch of stuff published about all these assorted gods, but if you aren't the "buy everything published" sort and have been for a while, a lot of it is not readily available. Second, I do not consider it true that whatever god the PC picks gets more attention. That is, in fact, exactly what I do not wish to have happen. I wish to have well developed dieties that are relevant to the campaign world regardless of whether or not anyone is currently playing a worshipper of them. This is pretty much just an IMC issue, so this discussion probably not going to go anywhere except around in circles at this point.