I've always like the idea that gods are never truly good or evil. Let me explain. A god acts the way he or she does because they are a combined representation of their various areas of control. By this arguement, it assumes that ideas of good and evil are mortal constructs, and as such are applied to the various gods by mortals. A god of law and murder, for example, would be considered LE as far as mortals go, but in reality they are just acting according to their portfolios. Using this way of thinking, however, still limits what alignments worship what gods. A CG character would never worship the above god as their chaotic view would conflict with the diety's domain of law and also their belief in what was "good" would never condone murder. Of course, using this way of thinking doesn't really apply to certain campaigns, such as Planescape where the planes themselves are based on belief and anything resembling Forgotten Realms, where some gods are former mortals, thus taking their mortal beliefs with them when.
Do you agree or disagree with this particular view? And could this idea work in Planescape?
Most RL deity concepts are best described as neutral, because their followers can range from good to evil (Though very few humans in existance are good, and most are neutral)
Deities that follow a -thing-, like, say, child birth, etc, are neutral, unless they're:
Deities that follow a REASON, such as "Because if you give birth, that child has a chance of true happiness.", etc etc etc.
For instance, take Bast and like pleasure deities. There's nothing good or evil about nookie; but they tend to defend everyones RIGHT to nookie and happiness, and protect people out of the good of their heart -- they're not just out to get their OWN nookie.
/me runs off, giggling
In that light, yes, Gods can be GOOD or EVIL, and many do have their own adendas regarding this. For instance, the God Seth of the Egyptian Pantheon wishes nothing less than to replace Ra as head of the Egyptian Gods.
On that note, I've never liked the idea of a God depending on worshipers for his or her(or its) existence(Lowers Gods to the level of addicts). Gods reward mortals who worship them, and punishing others who don't. If for instance, an entire world stoped believing in Gods, those Gods wouldn't die, instead, theyd probably be very angry and just may punish the world's inhabitance for their unbelief, depending on the God. Gods simply exist, and don't get stronger or weaker if the number of mortals serving them grows or decreases.
However, this describes TRUE Gods. Other powerful entities exist, such as Powers and Demi-Powers, that may or may not be concepts, and may or may not depend on worshipers for their existence.
The differences between the two groups are simple: Gods don't depend on Mortals, Powers do.
In that light, yes, Gods can be GOOD or EVIL, and many do have their own adendas regarding this. For instance, the God Seth of the Egyptian Pantheon wishes nothing less than to replace Ra as head of the Egyptian Gods.
On that note, I've never liked the idea of a God depending on worshipers for his or her(or its) existence(Lowers Gods to the level of addicts). Gods reward mortals who worship them, and punishing others who don't. If for instance, an entire world stoped believing in Gods, those Gods wouldn't die, instead, theyd probably be very angry and just may punish the world's inhabitance for their unbelief, depending on the God. Gods simply exist, and don't get stronger or weaker if the number of mortals serving them grows or decreases.
However, this describes TRUE Gods. Other powerful entities exist, such as Powers and Demi-Powers, that may or may not be concepts, and may or may not depend on worshipers for their existence.
The differences between the two groups are simple: Gods don't depend on Mortals, Powers do.
Originally posted by Ornum
it assumes that ideas of good and evil are mortal constructs, and as such are applied to the various gods by mortals
The only problem with that is that in D&D good and evil are not mortal constructs, they are absolute forces in the world. A holy sword doesn't check to see if a person is considered evil, it just lays extra smack down because they are evil. Similarly, a god of murder disrespects life, and this is the hallmark of D&D evil. Therefore, that god is evil.
However, this describes TRUE Gods. Other powerful entities exist, such as Powers and Demi-Powers
Except that "power" is synonymous with "god". The term "power", as I understand it, was used for political correctness reasons more than anything else. They mean the same thing. In D&D terms, there's no difference between a "god" and a "power". Personally, I think it makes complete sense that the power of various gods waxes and wanes with the number of worshippers. (I mean those doing things in accordance with the god's portfolio, not those willingly part of that god's church ncecessarily.)
Suppose you've got a god of daffodils. If there's no such thing as a daffodil anymore, and no one even believes in the existence, past, present or future of daffodils, then as far as the entire experience of the entire mortal world is concerned, there are not, were not, and will not be daffodils. The great power daffodilu, may he be praised and feared, becomes Githyanki foundation material on the astral. His portfolio doesn't exist, ergo, he doesn't exist. Considering D&D, and especially planescape, doesn't really assume an objective model of reality, and does assume more of a subjective, consentual reality model, I'd say this seems reasonable.
Originally posted by Sildatorak
The only problem with that is that in D&D good and evil are not mortal constructs, they are absolute forces in the world. A holy sword doesn't check to see if a person is considered evil, it just lays extra smack down because they are evil. Similarly, a god of murder disrespects life, and this is the hallmark of D&D evil. Therefore, that god is evil.
OK, as far as that goes, I see your point. But one argument against what you have just stated is that one's view of evil differs from another person's view. I'll give you two examples, one historic and one game related. The first is King Richard, who led (one of) the Crusades against the Saracens. Good ole' King Richard wanted to drive out the "hethens" from the holy land and was considered good by his people (for the most part), while on the other hand the Saracens only saw a foreign tyrant bent on expelling them from their very homes by force. Very oversimplified, but you get my meaning. One person's good is another's evil. (This is in no way meant to start some religious war, just used as an example.)
The second example involves the orcs. Are they really evil, or are they just trying to show that they should be considered equals among the other races? One creation myth (in the DND game) states that the gods drew lots to see whose races were to be placed where in the world. The so-called good gods purposely tried to leave Gruumsh without a place for his people and even taunted him after the fact. He then made a place for the orcs in spite of this. Of course, this is an orcish myth and is therefore skewed (as are all myths), but it shows that they believe the good races hated them from the start. Are their "evil" actions a product of just being evil, or is it a result of sociological issues such as having been stigmatized from day one with the evil moniker, and they are defending themselves as they only know how?
How many times during quests did you either run a character that attacked orcs on sight, or as a DM see your players do the same? I've even been guilty of it in the past, but the last character I ran saved an orc which some humans were trying to kill. My character had no idea what the orc did to deserve the treatment, so he stopped it. The npc's were taught that all orcs are "evil", so they attacked under a preconceived notion that they had of orcs and did what they thought was "good".
Of course, in a game such as DND, it would be difficult to simulate this idea, as certain spells and abilities run off of the assumption that there is an absolute good and an absolute evil. The question itself wasn't "how does this idea work in accordance to the rules" but instead "does this idea have merit as a belief structure".
Deities, even in mythology (just about anything but monotheistic "Ours is the bestest!" stuff), are born and die. Their power waxes and wanes, IRL, via how many people worship them. Zeus used to be a BIG deal, and everyone feared him. Now maybe a thousand people fear him.
Planescape just said "Hey, we could use this to explain Everything!".
Or do you still fear Zeus?
For example, if I kill a man, and in my mind, I'm doing the right thing, does that mean I'm doing good? No, it means I'm misguided, and even evil. When doing good, always make sure it really is good, because its not always. Thats the difference between being Rightious and being Self-Rightious.
Yes, Good and Evil do depend on one's perception, but someones perception can be wrong. In that cause, Richard the Lionhearted wasn't actually doing good at all, even if he thought that killing infidels was the right thing to do, as the Christian that he was, all he had to do was take a quick look at the Bible(Thou shall not kill, Love thy naighbor etc.) and he'd realize the error of his ways. In that light, the Saracens perception was the correct one.
Thats the main difference between the real world and Planescape in my mind. In the real world, what you see is what you get, regardless of your beliefs, in Planescape, belief has power, and can really change reality and the laws of physics. But it is dangerious to apply situational ethics to reality, since it leds to all kinds of problems(Do you want criminals killing people, and getting away with it, because they thought they were doing the RIGHT thing?)
On that light, I should really get back on topic..
I believe that killing is wrong, no matter what, but I also believe that sometimes it can't be avoided. It doesn't make it less wrong, but when I'm playing a good character, I'll seek penance whenever I'm forced to kill a sentient being.
As a DM, I encourage this way of thinking, but I don't penalize if my players don't seek to be forgiven when forced to kill to protect the lives of others just because it conflicts with my personal views on the subject. I do penalize, however, when a player kills for revenge or sheer hatred.
As for going off topic, I agree. The thread was started as a question about gods, and thus was, in a sense, related to Planescape, but it is now getting off of that subject somewhat and should probably be continued on another board where general discussions on differing views of good and evil are relavent.
I did enjoy the discussion, though. Glad that someone took the time to thoughtfully respond and not just blast me because I had a different thought about the subject than the majority of people usually do.
Also, thanks for the intelligence compliment, but I'm just a decent writer. I sound smart because I can backtrack and correct mistakes to more thoughtfully get my point across. If we had this conversation face to face, I probably would have sounded like an idiot, as my thoughts are usually not that well organized until I can write them out.
I too also appreciate the debate. Its rare one can sit down and discuss(um, type) an issue anywhere without getting blasted.
You sound like a good DM.
Now, on topic.
To answer your question, now that I've thought it over..
Yes and no..
Some Gods are merely concepts, now that I think about it. For instance, the Earth Mother figure is more of a concept than an accual goddess.
On the other hand, the 9 lords of Baator are NOT concepts, but living, opinionated creatures. One classic Planescape adventure, The Fires of Dis, features Dispater as the villain.
I think Gods can really be divided into three catagories.
You've got the abstract "Conscept" gods, the classic Olympian type gods(Who quarrel, lust, fight, and generally act as fallible as we human beings) and then you've got your "Beyond Comprehension" Deities, like HP Lovecraft's Cthulu.
I remember reading somewhere in a 2nd edition book how Gods were catagoried in terms of power(I think it was Powers and Pantheons)
First, theres Demi-Powers. These are beings who only recently ascended to Godhood. For instance, in second edition, Vecna was a Demi-God. You could also consider Sauron the dark lord, from lord of the rings, a Demi-God.
Next, we have lesser powers. These are full-fledged Gods and Goddesses in their own right. But they have only minor roles in their pantheons, or a smaller following. For instance, the Greek Gods Dynonysius and Pan could both be considered lesser powers.
Third, we have Greater Powers. These are strong, influencial Gods and Goddesses, that either lead their Pantheons, or are popular with the masses. The Greek God Zeus, and the Egyptian Goddess Isis, are both examples of Greater Powers.
Fourth and finally, we have "Overpowers" these are Gods or Goddess of such power, that they don't have mortal worshippers. Instead, these powerful beings are sometimes even unknown by mortals! The Dragonic god Ao, and the Dragonlance High God are such beings.
Hope that was helpful.
My Conceptual Beings aren't powers, or demi-powers, or over-powers, they're simply beings that are, in their entirety, the personification of some concept. They're more in the category of "literary construct" than they are "god", "power", or "powerful being". Sometimes you see "Death" displayed as a skeletal dude in black robes with a scythe. Likewise, I have other beings for other ideas. In terms of outright, in-game power, they rival the Lady. She seems to be something akin to one as well, actually. Dolores would be the concept of "Sigil", if I had to put her into this category, which I don't have to, and don't actually do, but it's an easy analogy to make. These beings are few and far between, too, especially when you consider the amazingly large amount of concepts that are, in my mind, all different parts/aspects/views of one concept. For instance, Sophos, my "Wisdom" conceptual being happens to also be the one for "Fate"(determinism), "Free Will", "Time", and "Enlightenment". And probably some other things too.
Anyway, in my game, powers/gods may wax and wane with worshippers and the stregth of belief in their portfolios, but my conceptual beings don't. If anything, they would wane only when there is insignificant ability among the dwellers of the universe to consider the existence of the concepts which they embody. Then again, they don't usually mess around with much, and are hence seldom seen, with the exception of Sophos, who happens to be one of the most, and at the same time, least mischievous beings I've come up with.
Oh god, how I'd love to use Discord in a game someday. But my players would probably leave me. On second thought, they almost hanged me after a game where one of their trusted allies turned out to be the Big Bad Evil Guy. I had to leave the state for weeks to avoid a severe pumelling. If I used Discord, they'd kill me. I estimate about fifteen minutes, real time, from introduction of the character to my players beating me to death with a brick. But I digress.
Even the over-powers of overpowers can't touch these beings. In short, if you understand what they are, they could kick your ass before you thought about starting the fight, if it was part of their purpose in the structure of the universe. As a general rule, they don't though. Not for any reason of course, it's just they already know the outcome, and have already avoided having to kick your ass about three million millenia before you thought about it. If you, and no one else anywhere, ever, now, before now, before the beginning of all time and even before that and so on, or after the end of time and after that and so on, doesn't understand what they are, then they wouldn't exist, so it would be a moot point.
Amyway, that's my take on the difference between "concepts" and "powers". Powers have incredible dominion over the concepts in their portofolio, and may champion said concepts, and grant spells in accordance with said concepts, but I've gone one step further and personified said concepts into odd, not-quite-NPC beings.
They're really funny.
A god has a portfolio and also his or her personality is also decided by her worshippers... But within that there's a pretty large room for his own opinions, take Zeus. He does the thundering and lightning. He's CG, right? He could just as well be CE because thundering really doesen't have an alignment cannotation.Most portfolios don't hav ethose, so there the gods are OK. but some DO, for example, it's damn hard to be an evil god of mercy (although it mgiht be possible) These gods are almost always their "indicated" alignment.
Of course, then we come to the fact that there are millions of gods on all the millions of prime-material worlds...