quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth

The key point is that the gods don't perceive good or evil: they perceive that in which they are set over dominion and any forces acting for or against it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrigley

The same goes for eternal afterlife - wouldn't it get crowded soon if everybody who dies stayed eternaly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth

The key point is that the gods don't perceive good or evil: they perceive that in which they are set over dominion and any forces acting for or against it.

---

There are deities who pursue goals that have little to do with their actual portfolio, though (both Eilistraee and Vhaeraun are an example: for them, the portfolio can even be seen as instrumental to their main goal). I don't think that gods wear blinders and can't see beyond their portfolio (although it surely is their main concern and influences their perspective, in most cases), and they do seem to perceive good or evil to me, given that they have alignments (but even then, and it is true for mortal creatures as well, good and evil heavily depend on your point of view).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth
I'm using my primary research here as the ways in which the deities fail to perceive the world beyond their portfolio as outlined in Prince of Lies with the exception of Mystra (Midnight) and Cyric, much to Mystra's extreme frustration. Oghma doesn't see Cryic as evil, he sees any action which seeks to obscure the truth or destroy knowledge as evil. Mortals have a concept of good and evil, but in Crucible, Talos is angry that Mystra isn't creating enough destruction magic and is discouraging mages from learning new destructive spells. He views that as evil, because he's charged with fomenting destruction. Mortals view destruction as an evil act (generally) thus Talos is referred to as an evil deity, but Talos himself doesn't think he's evil. He sees the need to destroy things. Lathander, being the god of renewal, probably has some synergies with Talos because if things aren't destroyed, they can't be renewed. He probably has another symbiotic relationship with Shar, in that without night, there cannot be a dawn. This doesn't mean he doesn't oppose Shar's obsession of an eternal night, as that would prevent dawn from occurring, but he doesn't see himself as a "good" god, even though his worshippers view him as such.

The deities are manifestations of forces. Bane's goal is to further hatred, so when he takes an avatar, it's going to be one that somehow incites hatred. If he sends visions, it's going to be to further hatred. Bane doesn't hate people, he is hatred. Bane has the capability of feeling betrayed and angered when his plans are thwarted, but Bane isn't a god of evil. Bane dislikes it when any other power causes a truce, or differences are reconciled, and he doesn't care if that's two priestesses of Loviatar ceasing a battle over who can whip someone better and agreeing they're both good at it, or when a druid of Eldath and of Mielikki agree to share a grove instead of fighting over it: if it ends any kind of hatred, Bane is against it.

Similarly, Bhaal will never show mercy, Ilmater will always show mercy, Oghma will never destroy lore, Talos will destroy everything if given the opportunity, Selūne will never like lunar eclipses, Shar will never dislike them, et cetera.

Tyr only cares about law, not about whether the law is good or evil, not the severity of a crime. Paladins of Try might chop off the hands of a woman stealing bread to feed her children, because to Tyr, the law is the law. Torm is more virtuous, and honorable. If you read Crucible you'll remember that Helm imprisons Mystra despite the effects of doing so on her follows. Similarly, he destroyed the first Mystra because she was attempting to circumvent his guardianship over the celestial stairways as Ao had decreed. Helm only sees things to guard. He doesn't care from whom they are being guarded, only that the guarding and the guardians are successful. Anything that detracts from vigilance would be "evil" to him.

Thus, while the gods are aware of and further law or chaos, they are balanced toward neutrality as is Ao's goal and apparent will. He created the gods and set them in opposition to one another, and while sometimes they overlap or their goals are somewhat aligned, I do not believe that they manifest or view themselves as good or evil, but rather entirely neutral in all things but the areas over which they are charged. Sune's job is to find beauty in everything: it is her mortal worshippers who define what beauty is and venerate her through its pursuit.

In closing, while the gods are given alignments, that is (IMHO) because clerics had to be either of or "one step away" from the god's alignment to venerate him or her (depending on the edition). It's not that the gods are of that alignment, but rather their spell-wielding clerics must be attuned enough to the god's motives to serve him or her. It is simply not possible for a chaotic evil person to serve Torm. Based on my readings, Ao sees chaos and order as the balancing powers, and mortals see order as law and chaos as evil. Good is a highly subjective thing. Zhentil Keep's destruction was probably viewed as good by many in the Realms, but not by the people who lived in Zhentil Keep. Talos was thrilled, no doubt, but Cyric was not, even though he caused it and he is an "evil" deity.

---

quote:

---

Eilistraee's purpose is to free and liberate drow from the Underdark and help them rejoin the surface world. Any drow she "saves" from a life in the Underdark furthers her goal. She manifests that through drawing dark elves back into dances to the moonlight, and while she favors female elves, she doesn't shun male elves in the manner that Lolth does. Lolth seeks chaos, and while (for example) Gromph Baenre will never be seen as more powerful than a high priestess of one of the lower houses in Menzoberranzan, this is not an edict from Lolth. He acts as an agent of chaos constantly, therein he furthers her goals, even though he is merely a male in the eyes of the matron mothers.
Vhaeraun advances raids from drow on the surface world. Eilistraee runs counter to that goal, so he is at odds with her, as she tries to subvert drow back to living on the surface (which would make raids pointless if that's where one already resides). He would see any attempt to remove drow from the Underdark permanently as inherently anathema to his domain. Their mother, Lolth, doesn't care where the drow live as long as they are creating chaos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

That hasn't been my understanding of it. From the sourcebooks and novels I have read, souls remain in the realm with their deity and retain their individuality (and some can get promoted). I don't think I have read anything that suggests merging with their deity to the point of losing their individuality.

Edit: I just looked through some of the sourcebooks I have. TheY say nothing about souls merging with a deity. A dead soul goes to the Fogue Plane, and waits for their deity (or a servant of that deity) to come and collect them. They are taken to that deity's realm, where they serve that deity. In one it says "the agent collects the proper souls and returns to its deity's realm, where the worshiper serves the deity in whatever capacity necessary". (258? I believe this is from the 3.5 CG, but it doesn't say the edition. The 4e CG says "One that has strong faith and capabilities might be taken to the dominion of its deity, go serve him or her beyond life" (pg 65). Finally, the SCAG says "The servants of the gods come to collect such souls and, if they are worthy, they are taken to their awaited afterlife in the deity's domain" (pg 20.

There is nothing about them merging or losing their individuality. One could argue merging would be the way they "best serve" their deity, but I doubt that is the case with most deities. By all accounts, the souls remain in the realm of their deity.

Note: the sourcebooks also say that unclaimed souls can become aides to Kelemvor. But only those who are on the Wall lose their individuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

I'm not arguing that portfolio heavily influences how a deity perceive the worlds. If you think about it, the same happens for mortals, as we too perceive the world through our interest. Following your example with the gods, for a human, cutting down some trees to build a refuge to shelter the homeless could be seen as good, but it is ''evil'' to the tree themselves and those creatures who used to have their home there. I agree with you when you say that evil and good can be very subjective. I also agree that Ao wants the gods to contrast each other and achieve ''balance'' between what they represent. However, what I meant is that deities don't wear blinders, and they can have goals and perform actions that are beyond their portfolios (I stand by my example of the drow deities, as I explain below).

As for divine alignments, there must be a reason why divine spellcasters can receive power from a deity, only if they're close to a certain alignment. There must also be a reason why Mask's or Mystra's alignment have changed when mortals have ascended to become them. While deities can see as good what favors their portfolio, and evil what contrasts with it, they can also know values as mercy or kindness independently on their portfolio. If gods were truly that limited, they'd basically be machines.

Tyr is a deity of law and justice, but he's also good. I know that he's all about upholding the law, and punishing those who don't, but what's the point of saying that he's LG if mercy is unknown to him? I can't picture a LG paladin of Tyr harming a mother stealing food for her children. I know that Tyrrans can be rigid, but the paladin can forgive. He is more likely to have the woman do some work to pay for her food, and maybe then even further help the woman (buying her more food maybe), because he is a good person.

Helm, as LN, truly is just a guardian. He doesn't care about anything but his duty.

Bane is about spreading hatred among everyone and Bhaal will be pleased with the murder of anyone, but how does that make them less evil? Their not caring about who is the victim just makes them indiscriminate. But I'm fairly sure that Bhaal would rather prefer an assassin cause many more victims, than him being struck down by guards or adventurers. Although, in Bhaal's and Bane's cases, ''evilness'' comes with their portfolio (in addition to being one of their traits as mortals, I guess).

Eilistraee wants to free the drow from Lolth and help them find the joy of life that they have been denied, but that has nothing to do with her portfolio (moonlight, dance, hunt, song etc). On the contrary, her portfolio is an instrument for her goal. In truth, by choosing to share the fate of her people and to be at their side in the times of need, instead of remaining in Arvandor, she might have even harmed her chances to promote her portfolio, as she basically chose to heavily narrow her worshiper base (leading to less people nurturing song and dance, or spreading joy in her honor).

Vhaeraun actually wants the drow to conquer back their place on the surface and be free from Lolth (in fact he has come to a truce with his sister recently), and his portfolio (evil activities on the surface, thievery, etc...) sounds like a tool for it again. Both siblings pursue a goal that is not related to their portfolios. And they seem to do that with a greater priority than, say, nurturing song could have for Eilistraee.

If Lolth actually perceived the world through Chaos, and strove for it, she'd let the drow free to embrace new ideas and lifestyles, she'd let them embrace new faiths and be free to think for themselves, because diversity and variety in ideas lead to Chaos. Chaos isn't the same as strife, nor it is evil. Chaos can indeed bring positive developments (it is needed to bring innovation) and yet Lolth does not fully support Chaos. She doesn't want the drow to be anything but her puppets, so she is a tyrant to them, she's sadistic. But sadism and tyranny have nothing to with her portfolio, and she acts like that, because she's evil. In the end, she doesn't act as a deity of Chaos, but of strife.

That's what I meant when I used the drow deities as example of gods acting unrelatedly to their portfolio.

---

quote:

---

From the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide Page 40:
Tyr's followers devote themselves to the cause of justice, to the righting of wrongs and the deliverance of vengeance. This devotion isn't necessarily concerned with equality or fairness, but rather the discovery of truth and the punishment of the guilty. Those who favor Tyr tend to be stiff-necked about matters of theology and laws, seeing things in terms of black and white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth

I don't disagree that mortals rationalize their worldview; I'm saying that there's no rationalization by the gods, and I'd argue that they do, in fact, have blinders on - to use your analogy. To do otherwise would be to upset the Balance, and that is something Ao will not allow. Ed (if memory serves) explained this once as being inspired by how angels in Christian faith don't have free will, and although they're revered, they don't have nor understand the thing that makes mortals "special." (I'm paraphrasing here, because I had this conversation with him years ago at GenCon). He also mentioned that some deities were "self-named" and others influenced by what they "ruled." Bane was his primary example, again, if memory serves. I think that there's been some changes to the gods' ways of viewing things since Ao was created as a plot device (and Ed isn't overly fond of him) but canonically, Ao created the gods, and he can make or destroy them at will. They serve him, and through his will, they serve mortals in return for the worship of mortals, from which they gain power. But if they had free will, they'd all gravitate toward whatever portfolios were receiving the most worship. Why be a demigod of song and dancing when you can be a greater god of knowledge? Indeed, I think that the gods are portrayed as being very much like robots, hell-bent on a singular purpose, whatever happens to fit that portfolio.

---

quote:

---

But I do draw some differences with your portrayal of Eilistraee and Vhaeraun... I would say the latter tried to slay the former (and died in the attempt) because he viewed her as interfering with his portfolio. Eilistraee in turn was killed (some would say "Ao allowed her to die") because - as you put it - she was not fulfilling her divine duty. I won't hazard a guess as to why they're both back in 5E other than the common, "Because Ao says so" but, it is fitting with the rule that nobody becomes a god without Ao's explicit permission or approval.

---

quote:

---

Eilistraee is goddess of so many things that I have to agree and disagree with you concurrently. Her portfolio is really summed up as "anti-Lolth" and what's listed are activities that drow generally don't undertake in the Underdark. In none of the novels I've read have the drow sung (other than chants to Lolth), I don't remember any dancing, although they do hunt, but not in the moonlight. But I think that Vhaeraun fits perfectly into his portfolio's goals as we've both outlined them.

---

quote:

---

Lolth, however, wants chaos, and I maintain that. She doesn't care if the drow remain in the Underdark or not, unless she's worried that if they return to the surface, they'll cause less chaos. I also think her true domain is chaos amongst the elves, as that doesn't overlap with Talos or Umberlee. She's focused on elven chaos, particularly in maintaining the strife and hatred between the surface and drow elves. I think Bob Salvatore uses this (almost to the point of it being a trope now) where Drizzt is practically a chosen of Lolth because his presence creates so much chaos amongst them. That Mielikki may well have Drizzt as one of her chosen is interesting, but all of the other Companions would need to be her chosen as well (even if unwillingly - which seems contrary to chosenhood) as Mystra offers, but does not command, the status. It's yet another thing they've changed with 5E that I find very different than how Ed has always described it. However, the point is that Lolth doesn't care what Drizzt does as long as he continues to create chaos. The fact that he's trying to stay away from the drow yet continually finds his way back to them/with them means that killing him would go against her charge of creating chaos (amongst the drow/surface elves). I don't think Lolth views Drizzt as "one that got away" as much as an agent for her cause - unwilling or no - and she doesn't care if he is willing because his actions bring about her desires. When she feels he's not being useful enough, she sends one of her priestesses a vision or sign that they need to renew the hunt. But I concede the point that she is smart enough to know that if she lets the drow out of her purview, she loses power. I don't doubt she's power hungry, but I think that all of the gods are insofar as when their power increases, they're doing their jobs better.

---

quote:

---

I do think that Tyr would cut off the hands of a woman caught stealing if the punishment in the lands in which she stole was such. You are correct that one of his paladins might not do so, but again, it would depend on how much leniency is allowed. Priests of Tyr are often judges, and as holy warriors for the Church of Tyr, paladins can indeed show merciful justice. But if they do so where not warranted, they are not serving Tyr. Tyr is categorized as LG, true: but to quote SCAG's entry on him:

quote:

---

From the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide Page 40:
Tyr's followers devote themselves to the cause of justice, to the righting of wrongs and the deliverance of vengeance. This devotion isn't necessarily concerned with equality or fairness, but rather the discovery of truth and the punishment of the guilty. Those who favor Tyr tend to be stiff-necked about matters of theology and laws, seeing things in terms of black and white.

---

If Tyr were truly a "good" god, he'd have mercy in his portfolio. That his domain is War is rather telling, based on my read. Tyr isn't an ascended mortal, and so I believe he's bound to his view in a way that the "new" gods aren't.

---

quote:

---

I appreciate the excellent counterpoints, Irennan! Theology in the Realms is an interesting subject to me, particularly because it is/was based on Ed's view of how the gods should work, and his mind is a fascinating place to explore. Without that mind, we'd not be here debating the finer points of things that have come from it. Cheers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

That hasn't been my understanding of it. From the sourcebooks and novels I have read, souls remain in the realm with their deity and retain their individuality (and some can get promoted). I don't think I have read anything that suggests merging with their deity to the point of losing their individuality.

Edit: I just looked through some of the sourcebooks I have. TheY say nothing about souls merging with a deity. A dead soul goes to the Fogue Plane, and waits for their deity (or a servant of that deity) to come and collect them. They are taken to that deity's realm, where they serve that deity. In one it says "the agent collects the proper souls and returns to its deity's realm, where the worshiper serves the deity in whatever capacity necessary". (258? I believe this is from the 3.5 CG, but it doesn't say the edition. The 4e CG says "One that has strong faith and capabilities might be taken to the dominion of its deity, go serve him or her beyond life" (pg 65). Finally, the SCAG says "The servants of the gods come to collect such souls and, if they are worthy, they are taken to their awaited afterlife in the deity's domain" (pg 20.

There is nothing about them merging or losing their individuality. One could argue merging would be the way they "best serve" their deity, but I doubt that is the case with most deities. By all accounts, the souls remain in the realm of their deity.

Note: the sourcebooks also say that unclaimed souls can become aides to Kelemvor. But only those who are on the Wall lose their individuality.

---

It is a Planescape concept. I don't know if it holds true for the FR, but seeing that sourcebooks don't mention it, we could say that it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


At the time it was published, the Realms was part of Planescape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Huh, interesting. Have you figured out what it contains? The Wall surrounds the City of Judgement, right? Do you have it to where it doesn't, since it is containing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Huh, interesting. Have you figured out what it contains? The Wall surrounds the City of Judgement, right? Do you have it to where it doesn't, since it is containing something?

---

It was just a continuation of another idea. Some sort of imprisoned ancient evil, something scary enough the gods wanted it gone but powerful enough they couldn't just kill it.

Another part of the idea was that another part of this contained evil was in Cyric's domain. The influence of this thing was what pushed Bane to pull his shenanigans with the Tablets of Fate; Cyric was more willing to embrace a potential tool and it led to all of his craziness.

The ideas could be separated, and I'm honestly not sure how cool I am with the idea of the bad guys not being responsible for their actions... It was all just something that occurred to me as another spin on things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrigley

In my realms gods are either created by higher beings (Ao or elder gods) or ascended mortals who grabbed the power. Reason for their portfolios is availability - most of the "best" are already taken by greater dieties so there is little chance to get it unless you decide to serve such god. All gods are sentient and are not bound by their portfolios but only influenced by it. They are also stronger when dealing within their portfolio.

About the alignment - I would like to remind that from the start clerics receive a simple spell to detect good/evil/chaos/law not only in planar beings but also in mortals - so it is measurable if you are good in the realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth
why would a god act outside of his or her portfolio? If Auril starts focusing on say, illusions, then does another god have a chance to snatch away winter from her? The reason I avoid this is that it makes the gods really, really powerful mortals, in essence, as they can be killed to varying degrees of success. Just curious as to your rationale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan
Unfortunately, that has happened many times in FR. Gods are basically very powerful wizards, according to how WotC portray them.

However, acting outside a portfolio doesn't mean trying to get another. In my FR a deity can't wrest another's portfolio. However, deities can take interest in situations or events or even support causes that aren't directly tied to their portfolio, but that align with their personality. The reason why I don't like the ''deity=avatar of a portfolio'' thing is that it greatly limits them. It kind of isolates them from the world. It would be like having someone not perceiving anything outside of their job. It also makes gods very easy to outsmart, because of their extremely narrow focus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azuth
I will agree that's how WoTC portrays certain deities in certain novels, but not universally. Inconsistency in their editing/authors is the primary reason this thread exists. But some deities behave with a single, unilateral focus. I think that was attempt by people like Jim Lowder to make sure the gods weren't acting like super wizards.

Because of their divine status, I do believe that when a god acts outside of its portfolio, it is likely assaulting the domain of another. The only thing that's material for which I can't find a deity directly is time. I think deities can be complimentary (Lathander's aspect of the sun provides nourishment to the crops of the farmers who venerate Chauntea) but as soon as Lathander starts focusing on making sunflowers the staple crop because he likes the way they look, he's gone beyond his portfolio and is now interfering with the natural cycle that Silvanus prefers, and encroaching on Chauntea's portfolio by dictating (via his divinity) a preference in something that has nothing to do with dawn or renewal. This is why I'll again point to Oghma's unwillingness to stop Cyric in Prince of Lies unless and until Cyric harmed one shred of lore. It's why, canonically, a deity would face censure from the pantheon for straying outside of its portfolio. The gods are supposed to be rather one-dimensional, because their purpose for being is to further a single cause.

There are, of course, many examples of the gods acting outside of their portfolios because of the very thing you cite: WoTC's lack of interest in defining what is and is not a god. Even though I'm not a fan of the work, you see Kelemvor lose the last vestiges of his mortality as he embraces the theme "nobody should love death" in Crucible. Since that's a published novel, and seems to keep in line with the larger tone that the original Realms editors at TSR had in mind (ostensibly with Ed's input occasionally) that's the vision to which I ascribe. If you're not threatening lore, Oghma doesn't care. If you're not threatening beauty, Sune doesn't care. If you're murdering for any reason, Bhaal is happy. Individually, this makes the gods rather boring. But taken as a pantheon, you're not "tricking" a god as much as your actions may cross a different god than you planned. Trying to steal from a temple to Torm as a worshipper of Bane may invoke the wrath of Mask if you fail, although that doesn't mean Torm won't notice as you'd be directly trying to subvert or weaken his worship. But Tyr doesn't get involved until the would-be thief is brought before justice, by which time Mask is no longer interested because he's trying to empower the pickpocket in the trial room, and Helm is trying to make sure the guard who is supposed to prevent such things is vigilant.

---

quote:

---

Finally, mortals don't really have much to gain in trying to trick a deity. No matter how slow or focused they may be, they're still beings of tremendous power, and a mortal who wrongs a deity is unlikely to survive if said mortal manages to become noticed by the deity being impugned. That, plus the infrequent interactions of mortals and deities makes it really difficult for me to imagine when or why a mortal would try and trick a deity. Given their vast repertoire of magic (thanks to WoTC) most of them can detect lies at will, so it's not even a question of tricking the deity, but rather of doing something about which the deity cares. Using Oghma as an example, you'd have to be pretty dumb to see just how much of a book you have to desecrate before he decides to take action against you. Unless, of course, you worship Leira, and are acting in opposition to Oghma, as is her portfolio, but that's not an effort to "trick" Oghma as much as it's an attempt to fulfill the domain of intrigue and obfuscation that is Leira. I look forward to your excellent counterpoint, Irennan.

---