| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Mar 2011 : 22:45:45
Another thread got me to thinking on this subject.
What ever happened to the fantasy literature that showed "mere mortals" as being able to challenge the power of the divine?
I mean, I know it is there; but why are so many convinced that Mortals can't outstrip even the power of the Gods?
As the editions of D&D have come and gone, it has been a continuing trend that the divine can't be challenged in power...and mortals have become increasingly less powerful against the gods; to the point of nearly being powerless!
"In the beginning" mortal wizards (and few others) could literally amass enough power to chain the Lords of Hell and throw open the Gates of Heaven to challenge the Gods to combat.
Evil Wizards, such as Tam and others could actually hope to stand against a God in magical battle and hold their own; even if they couldn't actually permanently destroy a God. The earliest incarnation of D&D that I like to use (1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) never intended for Gods to simply be the highest tier of monster to be defeated; but it DID intend for a party of Heroic folks to be able to challenge a God that was stepping through a Gate and stuff him back in his home plane!
Rarely have I seen anyone actually play a character to the dizzying heights of level and power (legitimately...though my idea of ligit may be different I suppose) that would allow such to happen; but often the likes of Bigby, Mordenkainen and such were required to do so early on in the game.
So why are so many thinking that the Gods should be without the ability to be defeated by mortals? To me, it stands to reason that Gods should be able to not only be DEFEATED, but in some cases even chained by a mortal!
In Dragonlance, we see the Kingpriest of Istar getting ready to chain ALL THE GODS to do his bidding; and to prevent it the Gods had to invoke a cataclysm. Later, Raistlin nearly succeeds again.
In the Forgotten Realms we see that the Imaskari could even deny the presence of the Gods of their slaves into the Forgotten Realms...that is a major defeat if you ask me!
Also in the Realms, before Azuth was even a God, he defeated Savras and chained him into an artifact.
There are many other examples...but I won't blather on any longer.
The gist is this: why shouldn't mortals be able to challenge Gods? Is it a purely mechanical reason of game mechanics...or is it some fear people have that if divinity can be challenged by mortality then something horrible is wrong?
What exactly? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Mar 2011 : 02:39:22
Also, IIRC, the Dragon-Kings of Athas are not "true" dragons, either. Athas still has those, but the Dragon-Kings are something altogether different. They take on draconic forms, but not those of the standard dragons we are used to. These are more like divine/spirit-dragon forms, with very distinct traits not found in standard "true" dragons. Among these are multiple/translucent/radiant wings, glowing auras, and other peculiar traits that distinguish them from normal dragons. They are more like a dragon-like "being of immense power. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 12:29:20
The Dragon King ritual actually existed in 2E, along with a good-aligned cognate to instead transform into an Evangelion, details differed but it's essentially the same as your 3E version, Eldacar. Although perhaps not "true" deities, these ascendants do wield divine powers within their Dark Sun domains; they require worshippers to sustain their power, their relative power waxes and wanes with the number of these worshippers, they have organized faiths, they grant priest spells and abilities, they have avatars, they live forever, they are effectively gods and they certainly behave like gods. No "true" deities exist to oppose them within the Dark Sun setting, nor have any ever intruded from other settings. They may not be older than the universe, but so what? There is no practical difference unless you're a theologician.
Dark Sun is perhaps not the best example, though. It differs from "mainstream" D&D settings in too many ways, even the lowliest inhabitants of Athas possess considerable personal power when measured against those of other worlds; it's not unreasonable for epic-level Athasians to exceed their other-world counterparts as well. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 11:53:58
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Aye, that it was. Which is why I mentioned that bit. Zeus especially was rather prolific in that respect. As were Posieden and Ares. Heracles was in fact a demi-god of Zeus's get, as was Perseus. Achilles was of Themis, and Alexander was said to be descended from a god.
The Trojan Cycle makes mention of Zeus' fathering of children being specifically aimed towards upcoming wars against the Giants that he would have to fight, and the necessity for a mortal hero (or rather, a hero that wasn't a "full god" at that time) to land the killing blows, because certain creatures could not be slain by an immortal.
So Zeus went around fathering a whole pile of children, though he avoided fathering any on women who were fated to bear children greater than their father (e.g. Thetis). Once he got the one he wanted (Heracles), all the other demigods and heroes of the time were "weighing down" the Earth, and so he manipulated events to bring about the Trojan War and ensure that the heroes would be wiped out.
quote:
I could get into a rather esoteric tangent about hero-worship, and how the heroes themselves might be 'getting divine' by osmosis. If a hero becomes famous enough, and everyone practically worships him, is that not a prerequisite for ascension? Maybe at a certain point, the hero isn't quite mortal anymore - assume at level 25 they may be approaching DvR 0. This is not unheard of - in the Dark Sun source Dragon Kings there are rules for this. A tyrant of a citytate forces it's populace to worship it, and between levels 20-30 it begins the slow climb to demi-godhood. If that works for tyrants, why not popular heroes? what, precisely, is the difference between reverence and adulation?
There is, generally speaking, a difference between mortal, DvR 0 and DvR 1+.
Mortals are mortal. They can be ordinary farmers, or great kings and archmages. They're still mortal.
Divine Rank 0 is meant to represent quasi-deities, or hero-deities, generally those who already have some measure of divine blood in them. Achilles and Heracles from Greek myth. The Seven Sisters (technically, though they don't actually have it in the mechanics of 3.5e D&D) would/should also qualify. There is, however, some innate spark of the divine that all of them carry, a spark you can't just get by being an extremely powerful mortal (though it is arguable that the proper epic magic could conceivably grant DvR 0, there is no in-print one that does so, and you'd have to ad-hoc a few things within your own campaign).
Divine Rank 1 and above is "actual" godhood, obviously. Mortals can jump from nothing to this, as can "DvR 0" individuals.
Dragon Kings of Athas are slightly different. They aren't true gods, as far as I'm aware. There is a ritual by which one can become a Dragon King, and it was outlined for 3rd edition in a Dragon Magazine article somewhere. In short, if you were epic-level (with the necessary feats), had 9th level spells and psionic powers, and performed a ritual, you could trigger a transformation that would turn you into a dragon over the course of ten levels.
Going beyond that would require something else, I believe, unless Athas just allows straight mortal-to-divine conversion by the power of faith and belief (like Planescape).
That "something else" is where the Dragon Ascendant comes in. It's in the 3rd edition Draconomicon, a class for any true dragon who meets certain prereqs (for reference, a Gold Dragon would generally meet them by the time it reaches the "Old" stage). Over the course of twelve levels they gain Divine Rank 0, awakening a divine spark. It's ascribed to the great power dragons already have:
"Easily the most powerful creatures native to the Material Plane, dragons hold a unique position in relation to the powers beyond that plane. Those who become dragon ascendants quest to transcend the limitations of mortal existence, rising above all other dragons to become nothing less than deities themselves. Their progress through the levels of this class represents their advancement toward their ultimate goal, and they become increasingly godlike as they advance."
This does mean that there is a way of getting to DvR 0 (and theoretically further) from mortal status on a pure level-by-level basis. You go up through the first twenty to twenty-five levels as an archmage, and pick up 9th level psionic powers in the process. Then, once you meet the requirements, work out your Dragon King ritual, and perform it. Over your next series of adventures, you max out this class, and then hit the Dragon Ascendant running. By about level 45-50, you'll have DvR 0.
Ascending beyond that is more difficult, since IIRC in FR you need to have Ao approve/rubber-stamp anybody who wants to reach DvR 1+, but presumably having a divine sponsor could take care of that for you, if said sponsor is willing. Pure levels and mortal magic alone won't get you to true godhood, so you'll need an existing deity to support your ascension (though I personally don't see why a deity wouldn't generally agree to your ascension, given that you'd be an incredibly powerful individual who was, I would assume, devoted to your patron deity - having a new divine ally could well be extremely useful). Once that has been accomplished, you expand up the ranks of the divine by spreading your church and gaining more worship.
Interestingly enough, this brings you very close to the equivalent number of levels that the currently-printed deities have themselves, though without the cleric levels that the majority of them have. The only place where you can be stopped outright (rules-wise) is if you can't get support from an existing deity for your ascension to DvR 1.
(As a note, you can in theory skip the Dragon King ritual by doing a straight ritual to turn into a dragon of your choice - rules for such transformations can be found in the Savage Species book - and then following the Dragon Ascendant class as outlined. However, the Savage Species ritual makes you vulnerable to Wish spells and equivalent effects being employed to reverse the ritual and thus throw a wrench in your plans.) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 09:55:20
quote:
Markustay — ... the argument shouldn't be 'can mortals defeat gods', but rather, 'can heroes defeat gods' [etc]
Markus scores the win, even when half-awake past 4am.
Agreed, heroes can defeat gods, heroes can become gods, they do it all the time. Agreed also, the "prerequisites" for becoming a god in every D&D edition which published such rules explicitly states the character must be a hero of epic deed and power. Not at all unreasonable when stated in those terms.
Of course, becoming a god and killing a god are still very different things. But neither is impossible for a hero. I wouldn't personally make it as "easy" as it appears to be in D&D fiction. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 08:42:44
Tell that to the Emperor of Imaskar. 
The Jade emperor (Shou Lung) is descended from the Celestial Emperor himself, supposedly.
However, in eastern (FR) religion it is fairly common for mortals to ascend to godhood (the Boddas, the Padhrasattvas, the nine immortals, the travelers, etc). In fact, most non-human beings are part of the celestial court and have some smidgeon of divinity attached to them. Since inter-breeding is as common in the east as it is in Faerûn, there are usually a few people with some 'divine spark' in every village, and Oriental demons - Oni - are part of the bureaucracy as well, so a demon-blooded person would be considered part of the Kami (spirit) world, and have just as much chance to ascend, if not more so.
I think we are over-looking one very important fact in this discussion - PCs, just like novel characters, are HEROES, and not like 'normal folk'. There is supposed to be something special about them. So, while you may argue that the average person can't tackle a god, I would agree with you, but heroes are not average people (and perhaps all PCs has some divine/fiendish/outsider blood in them - some minute amount diluted by a hundred generations).
So I think the argument shouldn't be 'can mortals defeat gods', but rather, 'can heroes defeat gods'. And in every case, in literature, mythology, and D&D, heroes can in fact kill gods (because they are HEROES, of course).
I could get into a rather esoteric tangent about hero-worship, and how the heroes themselves might be 'getting divine' by osmosis. If a hero becomes famous enough, and everyone practically worships him, is that not a prerequisite for ascension? Maybe at a certain point, the hero isn't quite mortal anymore - assume at level 25 they may be approaching DvR 0. This is not unheard of - in the Dark Sun source Dragon Kings there are rules for this. A tyrant of a citytate forces it's populace to worship it, and between levels 20-30 it begins the slow climb to demi-godhood. If that works for tyrants, why not popular heroes? what, precisely, is the difference between reverence and adulation?
I may be cutting hairs, but its plausible. Maybe mortals can kill gods because they are no longer mortals by that point (and the ones that still are, fail miserably).
Kelemvor sort-of became a god this way, IIRC. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 08:11:52
It's important to note that in D&D worlds the Gods Are Very Powerful and their existence is undeniably manifest. From the perspective of most mortals the distinction is only academic; the gods most certainly outrank a mere king or emperor. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 07:40:08
I tend to think that "Gods are All Powerful" because the religious leaders want to keep people in line...if they can't be the King, they can be the voice of something higher than the king. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 04:32:09
I tend to think it has more to do with the idea that only someone with the blood of a god could ever hope to sit on equal footing with one. Those of Greek myths were always granted divinity after a lifetime of heroic deeds that no ordinary mortal could accomplish (cleaning out a stable fouled by decades of filth in a day, by re-routing a river, for instance) and always at the behest of the head of the pantheon, for having proven their worth and "right" to do so.
Monotheistic religions do not seem to allow for mortals to transcend this barrier at all, save for those who are living incarnations of a god or great prophets who have greater wisdom than other mortals. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 04:10:13
It's interesting that some number of these Greek demigods (mostly human, some monstrous) managed to eventually ascend to full godhood within the Olympic pantheon ... without challenging, killing, or replacing any existing deities. Even monotheistic religions allow for demi-deity creatures (such as nephilim and devas) to ascend through divine ranks, though naturally always a lesser station completely subservient to the will of the true deity.
Classic mythologies seem to assume the greatest heroes always possess blood of the gods, and further assume that mundane mortal men (without divine bloodlines) cannot aspire to challenge the gods with any success. This might be due to our records having been passed to us through centuries of monotheistic learning. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 03:54:42
Aye, that it was. Which is why I mentioned that bit. Zeus especially was rather prolific in that respect. As were Posieden and Ares. Heracles was in fact a demi-god of Zeus's get, as was Perseus. Achilles was of Themis, and Alexander was said to be descended from a god. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 03:16:23
Many human cultures believed people (or at least their people) were ultimately descended from deities, every human alive was thought to carry some miniscule trace of divine blood ... many faiths would teach that this divinity is the vital spark of life itself and present to some extent in all living things, permeating the world/universe instead of transcending it.
Then again, classic Greek mythology was full of deities fornicating indiscriminately; noble (and monstrous) demigod offspring was rather commonplace. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 02:51:07
Eldacar- I thought about linking that, but thought it was too snarky. LOL!!!
MT- I would only add that in Greek mythology, the mortal so elevated also had to already have the blood of a god from a parent, grandparent, or from a titan in the family tree. But that's a side-note. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 01:34:07
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Mortals challenging gods has been done so often in fantasy that it's a trope of its own.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidYouJustPunchOutCthulhu
Indeed it is. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 22:23:57
Interestingly, I was reading some of the OD&D Immortals rules, and it seems in the original game (NOT 1e), deities were immortals... but not really 'gods'. THE gods were something 'beyond' mortal ken. 'Deities' (Immortals) were like the 'farm team' for the real gods.
Then last night I was reading something in Tall Tales of the Wee Folk, for converting the material therein to AD&D. It says "Immortals: These are the equivalent to the AD&D game's deities. Immortals often are NPCs reached 36th level and completed a heroic quest of some sort."
So, an official rules booklet states that 'immortals are deities' (and vice-versa), and the Immortals rules for that game state the the immortals were ALL mortals at one time, who aspired to godhood.
By the same token, the 'Elder (real) Gods' aspire to something beyond them - they know it exists, but they have no idea what it is.
Now, using all of that, along with MUCH FR canon, we know that mortals CAN challenge the gods, and either kill them or join their ranks. According to OD&D, they need some sort of 'sponsor', but that's pretty much how it worked in FR lore as well (we have several canon instances of that, including Velsharoon, Savras, The Red Knight, etc).
So what we can surmise from all of that is not only is it possible for mortals to challenge gods, but its expected - its the way the system was set-up to work! "Survival of the fittest" - Darwin at his finest. What did Ao do when 'mere mortals' challenged gods? He made two of them deities, and later allowed a third to follow suit. That didn't seem like anything out-of-the-ordinary - quite the contrary, actually, considering how three of those dead deities got their own godhood.
And in Greek mythology, gods often 'elevated' mortals to higher rank, although to achieve the highest honors (true godhood?) one had to go to the Pantheonic Leader (which is why I have added a category BETWEEN Greater-god and Over-power: the High God - DvR 21-25). High Gods have complete control over the deities within their pantheon, and High Gods must still answer to an over-power.
A simple fix, but one that was really needed. It gets rid of a lot of weirdness (like what the heck Maztica, Fate, and the Celestial Emperor all are). |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 21:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I'd expect it to be for the reasons Arik gave. They want to keep the cosmology balanced and stable. ToT and Spellplague have done enough already, haven't they?
I'll concede that point for sure.  |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 21:08:19
I'd expect it to be for the reasons Arik gave. They want to keep the cosmology balanced and stable. ToT and Spellplague have done enough already, haven't they? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 20:52:32
Yes, now in 4e.
No, not in novels...but in the game. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 19:46:51
Are you asking why we don't see it in FICTION anymore? Well, the answer to that is two-fold. the first part is simple- we still DO see it. Gods are still very active in Faerun. (WotSQ/LP series(s) most recently.) the second part is becasue it't been done. TO DEATH. (Pardon the pun.) Mortals challenging gods has been done so often in fantasy that it's a trope of its own. huma/Tahkisis, Cyric/Faerun's gods, etc.... There are so many cases of this that readers are probably getting tired of it. who needs to read another tale of mortals battling gods? It's even done in video games, as others have pointed out. I think that says something about how common a theme it is. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 01:09:29
I assume by "now" you actually mean "4E"?
If so, I think I'll stick with something I've said before: 4E happens to be based on older D&D but it's an entirely different game with different rules. Only the Wizbro brand managers and game designers really know why godslaying is now categorically off limits ... I can speculate that (now the most gross transitions are all in the past) Wizbro wishes to keep the official D&D settings stable, predictable, and "balanced"; in large part that means the exalted roster needs to remain constant.
There are times when I find FR fiction very tiring: too many gods, too many Chosens and other über-minster sorts of NPCs (who for most practical purposes might as well just be unkillable avatars), I sometimes wonder if the gods are so grasping and petty simply because there's hardly any population of "normal" mortals left to worship them. In a way, I really hope 4E is attempting to distance the D&D settings from constant godly micromanagement and continue writing about the actual people instead. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 00:06:10
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Dalor — Are you saying the gods are unkillable in later editions because high-level mortals were nerfed?
I'll admit I'm not entirely clear about what position you're trying to argue.
Well....
quote:
What ever happened to the fantasy literature that showed "mere mortals" as being able to challenge the power of the divine?
I mean, I know it is there; but why are so many convinced that Mortals can't outstrip even the power of the Gods?
As the editions of D&D have come and gone, it has been a continuing trend that the divine can't be challenged in power...and mortals have become increasingly less powerful against the gods; to the point of nearly being powerless!
"In the beginning" mortal wizards (and few others) could literally amass enough power to chain the Lords of Hell and throw open the Gates of Heaven to challenge the Gods to combat.
Evil Wizards, such as Tam and others could actually hope to stand against a God in magical battle and hold their own; even if they couldn't actually permanently destroy a God. The earliest incarnation of D&D that I like to use (1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) never intended for Gods to simply be the highest tier of monster to be defeated; but it DID intend for a party of Heroic folks to be able to challenge a God that was stepping through a Gate and stuff him back in his home plane!
Rarely have I seen anyone actually play a character to the dizzying heights of level and power (legitimately...though my idea of ligit may be different I suppose) that would allow such to happen; but often the likes of Bigby, Mordenkainen and such were required to do so early on in the game.
So why are so many thinking that the Gods should be without the ability to be defeated by mortals? To me, it stands to reason that Gods should be able to not only be DEFEATED, but in some cases even chained by a mortal!
In Dragonlance, we see the Kingpriest of Istar getting ready to chain ALL THE GODS to do his bidding; and to prevent it the Gods had to invoke a cataclysm. Later, Raistlin nearly succeeds again.
In the Forgotten Realms we see that the Imaskari could even deny the presence of the Gods of their slaves into the Forgotten Realms...that is a major defeat if you ask me!
Also in the Realms, before Azuth was even a God, he defeated Savras and chained him into an artifact.
There are many other examples...but I won't blather on any longer.
The gist is this: why shouldn't mortals be able to challenge Gods? Is it a purely mechanical reason of game mechanics...or is it some fear people have that if divinity can be challenged by mortality then something horrible is wrong?
What exactly?
I even posted in my original post that I thought mortals should be able to CHALLENGE the Gods...not so much destroy them.
Why can't that be done now? In previous editions it was possible to do because, while it took a great deal of power to kill a god (and often couldn't be done), it wasn't unthinkable to defeat one. Such a defeat could result in the God being confined to its home plane for a while and such as that.
Why don't we see that any longer? The ability to do it...WITHOUT the help of Super-Man/Another God jumping in to help. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 00:00:29
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Nope, my point was that in earlier editions of the game, Gods and their Avatars might be in the mid 20s of their highest class level; and those levels didn't stack with other classes to give higher To Hit chances, Better Saving Throws (although in 3.x a Greater God always makes their saves anyway) and etc.
So your point is that in later editions, the levels of gods and their avatars increased (from their mid-twenties up to forty levels or more), and base attack bonus or similar was made stackable.
The thing is, of course, that mortals did as well, at least when addressing the issues like stacking save bonuses and base attack bonus (whether their levels increased depends on the DM for how fast the player levels, whether they're using levels beyond 20th, and so on), and several NPCs also increased in level (for example, Elmisnter went from a 29th level character to a 35th level character with a +4 CR template on top of that).
So yes, a deity gains the benefit of 20 levels of cleric and 20 levels of wizard. But a mortal cleric 20 / wizard 20 gains the exact same benefits from those forty character levels in terms of saving throws, base attack bonus, access to spells, and so on and so forth. It simply isn't realistic, however, to expect a 20th level character to ever be capable of standing against a 50th level character, with or without divine rank complicating the issue.
You are only partly right in this...
See, I'm confused now, because I'm pretty sure I looked at every single aspect of the post you made that I quoted (to hit = BAB, saving throws = saving throws, levels = levels), so in order to only be partly right I would have had to get at least half of that wrong.
Either that, or you've jumped around again. I really can't tell what you're arguing any more. It seemed to be that mortals were weakened. Then after I pointed out at least one strong build, you said something about levels. Now I've pointed out the problems with a 20th level character going against a 50th level character for any reason, and how it has nothing to do with divine rank, but you seem to have missed that.
Maybe you could say, clearly and with finality, just what your position is? I was under the impression that the response of mine you're quoting was already addressing your argument, but apparently it isn't.
quote:
Player Character Levels did NOT stay the same if you translated them from 1e/2e to 3e...The character, if of one class, stayed the same only to a certain point, and then began losing levels to translate.
You only find this to be the case with some player characters, which was a necessary result of changing over from dual-classing into a new class system that actually encourages multiclassing.
quote:
And Gods are SURELY not a good example as their Hit Points, to hit ability and etc. nearly doubled (or sometimes more than doubled!).
Hit point damage is usually for chumps in 3rd edition (there's a reason why "blaster wizards" are considered very sub-optimal builds). It also doesn't take much to pump out hundreds of points of damage, even thousands if you put a bit of effort into it. BAB, as I noted previously, benefited both mortals and deities.
quote:
So can anyone honestly say this wasn't a divide that widened from one edition to the next?
Give me fifty character levels in standard D&D (meaning roughly what the deities are given) and I can "kill" anything short of a greater deity. Give me access to third-party sources (specifically Kingdoms of Kalamar) and I can even take on one of those (pre-epic, at that). I can mock up a build for it in short order, if you like, and show you exactly how to do it. My previous construction was designed to hopefully challenge demigods in just twenty levels, and considering that even demigods have double the level count in many cases, I'd say I gave a pretty good accounting of myself, wouldn't you? |
| Abenabin Gimblescrew |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 20:45:07
Well I don't know about previous editions as much as 3.x editions and Pathfinder, but I think what is trying to be said is that mortals who have zero restrictions, or shall we call it "free will", seem to be more held at a disadvantage more so now then they were when dealing with the Divine Powers. For instance, demons or devils had to follow rules that are divinely written they can't break. Sure they can wiggle around it like a good lawyer finding loopholes, but for the most part their word is their bond and must follow through or they get hit hard by the cosmic order.
I personally always run my deities held to a "Divine Law". They are restricted to follow their duties and their functions, but the mortals are not and therefore can best them. I said best - not kill, maim, destroy, or take out. I agree with what Ed that Sage brought forth earlier in the thread. Deities cannot truly and completely be destroyed in the Realms. That is just how it is there, but that is what was intended. It was meant for DMs to decide what transpired in THEIR Realms not what happened in Ed's Realms (which we all know is drastically different then what it has become I'm sure).
Think of it like a Spiderman complex the deities have to follow. With greater power comes even greater responsibilities and less they can directly influence in the Material Plane without allowing another deity the same ability. It is effectively a Cold War raging in the pantheon, and the way gods/goddesses fight each other is through mortals who are not constrained by their restrictions. Hence is why Mortals are indeed more powerful than the Divine. Their actions envied by the gods for their lives are finite and their flame burns brighter than theirs will ever be. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 19:04:11
Dalor — Are you saying the gods are unkillable in later editions because high-level mortals were nerfed?
I'll admit I'm not entirely clear about what position you're trying to argue. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 18:34:29
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Nope, my point was that in earlier editions of the game, Gods and their Avatars might be in the mid 20s of their highest class level; and those levels didn't stack with other classes to give higher To Hit chances, Better Saving Throws (although in 3.x a Greater God always makes their saves anyway) and etc.
So your point is that in later editions, the levels of gods and their avatars increased (from their mid-twenties up to forty levels or more), and base attack bonus or similar was made stackable.
The thing is, of course, that mortals did as well, at least when addressing the issues like stacking save bonuses and base attack bonus (whether their levels increased depends on the DM for how fast the player levels, whether they're using levels beyond 20th, and so on), and several NPCs also increased in level (for example, Elmisnter went from a 29th level character to a 35th level character with a +4 CR template on top of that).
So yes, a deity gains the benefit of 20 levels of cleric and 20 levels of wizard. But a mortal cleric 20 / wizard 20 gains the exact same benefits from those forty character levels in terms of saving throws, base attack bonus, access to spells, and so on and so forth. It simply isn't realistic, however, to expect a 20th level character to ever be capable of standing against a 50th level character, with or without divine rank complicating the issue.
You are only partly right in this...
Player Character Levels did NOT stay the same if you translated them from 1e/2e to 3e...The character, if of one class, stayed the same only to a certain point, and then began losing levels to translate.
If the character had two classes (or more) they QUICKLY lost out in levels. I believe their highest character level was the base, then they took away HALF their other levels. Honestly can't remember the exact manner, but this is close.
So a Fighter 10 stayed a Fighter 10. A Fighter 10/Magic User 10 became a character with only 15 total levels, and it was up to the player to choose...so perhaps a Fighter 5/Wizard 10. Or a Fighter 26 might have become a fighter 22 or some such...again I don't remember exactly and don't have the rules conversion booklet in front of me.
NPCs like Elminster are not a good example...
And Gods are SURELY not a good example as their Hit Points, to hit ability and etc. nearly doubled (or sometimes more than doubled!).
So can anyone honestly say this wasn't a divide that widened from one edition to the next? If you say it isn't, then I would have to say you are either deluded or outright fabricating obfuscations. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 18:12:02
I'm honestly to the point that I can't tell if you guys are taking my side or not...BUT...
I can say to all that I NEVER thought in the frame of mind that everything was there to be challenged. I DID play a Wizard that thought nothing was beyond his ability to master.
I've also played devoted Paladins, humble Friars, street thugs, and even a rather pitiable gnome illusionist/thief that was afraid of almost anything.
So PLEASE don't categorize me in the "Power Player" role or an egotistical megalomaniac with all my characters...there is a vast difference between a role that is being played...and being a certain way. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 03:03:24
Exactly why I feel those editions were "broken". After level 20, there was not much point in progressing further. Even the Epic Level Handbook in 2nd ed did not give high-level characters much benefit as compared to the benefits of the 3rd ed version of the same book. It was almost useless in my campaigns. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 02:46:20
A problem was the scaling of high levels in 1E/2E. Once you hit around level 20 your THAC0, Saves, # of attacks, and spell matrix could no longer improve, your damage didn't increase ... about the only thing that did increase with each subsequent level was your HP, and only by a few points. Your best hope for real increases in power would be accumulation of upgraded magical loot. A level 50 character was basically just a level 20 character plus maybe 60 hit points and better magical gear. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 02:35:19
Agreed. And this was half my point to begin with. In earlier editions, all you had to worry about was the god's class levels. #rd and later introduced the outsider HD into the equation, but even without them, as was stated earlier, most of them have AT LEAST 30 class levels!! Many have 40 or more, or even 50+! It's completely unrealistic to expect a mortal character with only 20-ish levels to compete with that. And honestly, the gods in 2nd ed, or at least their avatars, were FAR too easy to fight. It made god-slaying much too tempting, leading to mass god-hunts, and that was really the whole reason that was changed.
Earlier editions made it TOO easy to go god-killing. It should NEVER be as simple as that to destroy an deity- even a relatively weak one. Otherwise, the entire cosmology of the game would be compromised. Planescape went a little way toward rectifying that error, but 3rd was where it was finally "fixed". It's not about widening the gap, it's about fixing a flawed game mechanic that was "broken". Making gods harder to kill gave back some of the mystique and awe to those gods, so that mortals would respect their power. 1st ed seems to have been about challenging everything that moved, according to Dalor's views. If killing gods was THAT easy, everyone would do it, and the fun would go right out of the game. Even 2nd ed was guilty of this to some degree. The stats given for gods in the Monster Mythology and Deities and Demigods books made it seem as if gods were just high-level monsters that could easily be killed. They are NOT. Nor should they be treated that way. They have priests and followers for a REASON. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 16 Mar 2011 : 23:40:14
quote:
Nope, my point was that in earlier editions of the game, Gods and their Avatars might be in the mid 20s of their highest class level; and those levels didn't stack with other classes to give higher To Hit chances, Better Saving Throws (although in 3.x a Greater God always makes their saves anyway) and etc.
So your point is that in later editions, the levels of gods and their avatars increased (from their mid-twenties up to forty levels or more), and base attack bonus or similar was made stackable.
The thing is, of course, that mortals did as well, at least when addressing the issues like stacking save bonuses and base attack bonus (whether their levels increased depends on the DM for how fast the player levels, whether they're using levels beyond 20th, and so on), and several NPCs also increased in level (for example, Elmisnter went from a 29th level character to a 35th level character with a +4 CR template on top of that).
So yes, a deity gains the benefit of 20 levels of cleric and 20 levels of wizard. But a mortal cleric 20 / wizard 20 gains the exact same benefits from those forty character levels in terms of saving throws, base attack bonus, access to spells, and so on and so forth. It simply isn't realistic, however, to expect a 20th level character to ever be capable of standing against a 50th level character, with or without divine rank complicating the issue. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Mar 2011 : 18:54:42
A further complication when encountering a divine agent of punishment:
The diety you have angered will no doubt entirely withdraw the support of their portfolio during this one-sided battle. Priests and paladins won't have any access to faith-based powers and magics. If you've offended Mystra or Azuth you won't be able to (safely) use spells or magic of any sort. If you've offended Tymora you'll probably find yourself supernaturally unfortunate (while the aleax is extraordinary lucky). Offending Bane might turn your minions against you when they receive "encouragement" from Bane to opportunistically promote themselves.
I've only used such beings twice. The first time as a clumsy expression of teenaged angst; the play session was a heated TPK disappointment for everybody but ultimately served me as a valuable learning experience. The second (much more careful) deployment was against a troublesome NPC (Volothamp Geddarm, of course!) who the players needed to protect ... a stressful running battle involving a tremendous amount of teleporting, healing, distraction, decoys, desperate strategy, and defensive buffing; the PCs couldn't affect or obstruct Beshaba's "Terminator" (evil Volo lookalike) aleax in any way but they certainly could assist poor Volo in his unfortunate struggle.
[Edit]
My reason for mentioning aleax was to demonstrate that D&D gods have the ability to defend themselves quite adequately. They aren't constrained by piddly level 20 or level 50 powers ... the aleax (which is just an agent formed for a specific task, then discarded) always has at least as much power as its mortal target. The power reservoirs of deities are not infinite, but they are certainly measured in magnitudes far beyond the capacities (or comprehension) of any single mortal.
I agree that the game rules in various editions show avatars and other divine vessels with fluctuating levels of power relative to mortal champions, which in some instances dip dangerously low and make godslaying a somewhat realistic goal. They do much the same thing for many of the prominent NPC stats; some players hunted Asmodeus in 1E, others hunt Elminster in 3E. Whether gods (actual gods, not just their little avatar mannequins) can be slain by mere mortals is ultimately the DM's or game designer's call, I personally declare such an action virtually impossible in my gaming. |
|
|
