I like gods as monsters.

[geoffrey]

While Gary Gygax was at the helm of TSR, the following official D&D or AD&D deity books were published:

Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (published by TSR for D&D)
Deities & Demigods (published by TSR for AD&D)
Unknown Gods (published by Judges Guild for D&D)

In general, the gods of Unknown Gods were the weakest, and those in Deities & Demigods were the strongest. But each book includes gods with stats such that a party of high-level PCs played by experienced gamers would have a decent shot of defeating them.

I like that. I like for that sort of deity to be realistically killable. (There are other sorts of deities that are both cool and unkillable, such as the statless gods in Empire of the Petal Throne.) What I do not like is the dictum that no god should ever be killable. It reminds me of the attitude I encountered in the hey-day of 2nd edition AD&D: "Dragons are far too cool and powerful for measly PCs to even encounter, let alone kill. Dragons are august entities of unimaginable power." No fighting gods, no fighting demon lords, no fighting dragons, etc. makes Geoffrey a sad boy.

[kent]

Geoffrey it is no longer plausible for you to deny your Power Gamer inclinations. Let no DM inhibit your spacecraft operating Int 3 magic user from slaughtering a god if that's what the retard wants. I don't think after dragons and demons that gods are merely a natural progression for you to kill, I think it is more that you can't stand the idea that something could exist in the campaign which you can't kill. If I invented entities more powerful than gods, lets call them Ids, I have no doubt you would argue for the right to kill them too.

The degree of glory you need to experience in the game to enjoy yourself is alarmingly high.

[geoffrey]

Kent, I have been told the exact opposite thing on dragonsfoot in one of my Holmes-as-a-complete-game threads. Basically: "Geoffrey, maybe you wouldn't mind playing an endless succession of 1st-level characters marching to the slaughter, but most gamers want to achieve higher levels of power than that."

The truth of the matter is that I prefer PCs in the 3rd to 7th level range (whether I'm refereeing or playing). That said, I enjoy all levels of play. The aspect of D&D that I most like is the exploration of fantasy worlds. That can be done through the eyes of characters of widely varying level.

Have you looked at Unknown Gods? If so, isn't it obvious that high-level PCs would trounce several of those gods in a fight? Why is that a bad thing? Why the dictum, "Gods everywhere and always must be undefeatable by the PCs"?

If the PCs hunted down and killed the Holy Trinity, that would be absurd. If the PCs slaughtered Ksarul (from Tekumel), that also would be preposterous. But I do not see any problems with the PCs slaying Crondussa, Goddess of Eagles (AC 0, hp 60, 12th-level fighter, 2 attacks/round for 1-20 hp damage each).

Surely there are gods, and then there are GODS. Isn't there room for both in D&D?

[snorri]

First time I heard about PCs slaughtering Gods, back in the times, I thought I was munchkinly unrealist because they were gods. But soon after that, after the reading of Queen of demonweb pits, I went to have gods walking on the earth, sometimes meeting PCs - especially the wandering gods of beggars - and eventually came to have Lolth herself involved into a gigantic battle between empire's armies. No direct fighting with PCs.

Now, I tend to consider killing gods as a feature of the game. I wouldn't worry about it, especially after a long-time campaign. In a wuxa-pian campaign I ran a few years ago - with a tinkered BRP system - he last part involved a fight against an assassin god, to save the dragon of the world - the one whose breath makes the worl alive. It was great !

[Stormcrow]

One of the problems is that it is difficult to define exactly what a god is, and to get others to agree with you.

[talysman]

If you are going to allow PCs to kill Thor and Zeus, why not turn them into species, so that they can kill a whole tribe of Thors or Zeuses?

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2013 10:44:54 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

What I do not like is the dictum that no god should ever be killable.

Understand, please Geoffrey, that I feel everyone should run the game the way they like. My post was addressing the argument that often arises in discussions such as these: the rules themselves mandate that deities are killable. My post was to show the intent of the rules as written was not that at all.

This doesn't mean a referee shouldn't do that. I still believe very much there is no wrong way to run the game. My apologies if I gave offense.

[Deleted]

Post deleted. Sorry everyone.

[strangebrew]

It would be totally badass to have a group that managed to kill Thor (or whoever) without a hint of power-gaming or monty haulism. Just a by-the-book party who had some luck over their career and a clever plan.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2013 15:13:03 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

But I do not see any problems with the PCs slaying Crondussa, Goddess of Eagles (AC 0, hp 60, 12th-level fighter, 2 attacks/round for 1-20 hp damage each).

Other than every eagle, giant eagle and surly were-eagle wanting to kill the PCs from that day on! This is not going to be a good day.

This highlights the main problem I have with how gods are stated out in D&D. They aren't really related to what is supposed to be their domain. Ra isn't a god of the sun, he's a superhero with light related power. Thor is a superhero with lightning related powers. It's made worse with the idea of "home planes" and avatars. Gods are the most guilt-free kills you can get and they regenerate so you can kill them again and again. You don't have to worry when you kill the god of the sun that you'll plunge the world into perpetual darkness.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 12, 2013 17:35:44 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

they aren't really related to what is supposed to be their domain. Ra isn't a god of the sun, he's a superhero with light related power. Thor is a superhero with lightning related powers. It's made worse with the idea of "home planes" and avatars. Gods are the most guilt-free kills you can get and they regenerate so you can kill them again and again. You don't have to worry when you kill the god of the sun that you'll plunge the world into perpetual darkness.

Exactly. Ra as written has no power over the sun at all. Thor as written is in no way responsible for thunderstorms. They're "just monsters."

[geoffrey]

Nov 12, 2013 17:23:04 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Nov 12, 2013 10:44:54 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

What I do not like is the dictum that no god should ever be killable.

Understand, please Geoffrey, that I feel everyone should run the game the way they like. My post was addressing the argument that often arises in discussions such as these: the rules themselves mandate that deities are killable. My post was to show the intent of the rules as written was not that at all.

This doesn't mean a referee shouldn't do that. I still believe very much there is no wrong way to run the game. My apologies if I gave offense.

I understand, Cameron. No offense taken at all, not even close!

[talysman]

Nov 12, 2013 17:52:28 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Nov 12, 2013 17:35:44 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

they aren't really related to what is supposed to be their domain. Ra isn't a god of the sun, he's a superhero with light related power. Thor is a superhero with lightning related powers. It's made worse with the idea of "home planes" and avatars. Gods are the most guilt-free kills you can get and they regenerate so you can kill them again and again. You don't have to worry when you kill the god of the sun that you'll plunge the world into perpetual darkness.

Exactly. Ra as written has no power over the sun at all. Thor as written is in no way responsible for thunderstorms. They're "just monsters."

They *ought* to have power over those things. Kill the sun god and accidental plunge the world into eternal night (and unleash the undead in the world, too.) Now, you either have to go on a quest to find a new sun god, or somehow make the sun god regenerate.

Kill the goddess of eagles and all the eagles die. And griffons lose their wings.

Kill the thunder god and storms -- and life-giving rains -- cease to be.

What a missed opportunity!

[snorri]

Not necessary. First, the one who delivers the killing strike could become the new god. Becoming God of eagles is nice endgame !

In a short campaign a few years ago, as a reward for successfulls PCS, the gods made turned them into constellations. Shiny !

[inkmeister]

Very cool thread.

Part of any disagreement here must hinge on what is meant by "god." I think for some, a god, by definition, must be beyond the reach of PC's - unkillable. Obviously Geoffrey doesn't subscribe to that definition. Maybe we should question why we use the word god instead of something else.

For my part, I basically agree with Geoffrey. I like the cheesy movie that is Conan the Destroyer. In that movie, Conan and friends kill a god, and I think that moment is very cool. I also like the idea that so called gods are really very powerful creatures. In reality, I am an athiest. I like to consider that reality is much bigger and stranger than any of us can imagine. In my fantasy, I imagine that there are all sorts of "orders" of beings, including some so ancient (or beyond time and space) and so powerful that a human would be strange not to consider the being a god. Yet, I also like to imagine that these god beings have needs and weaknesses of their own. While highly unlikely, it is possible that at least some of them might be taken down by mortals.

As to power-gaming; I've long wondered what the PC power levels look like in Geoffrey's games. Is 3-7 about right?

Also about power gaming: it seems weird to call someone out for power gaming considering most of us play a game (and read books and watch movies) where "heroes" do all kinds of unrealistic things, and wield very significant power (unrealistic power). That's part of the fun. Even a 1st level warrior is a lot more of a fearsome being than I will ever be (or would ever want to be, even).

[Deleted]

Sigh.

Right in the introduction to GDG&H Tim Kask that the gods were intended to be UN killable. Odin with 300 HP was specifically designed to show how ridiculous a 44th level Lord is.

Gary and Tim had not yet discovered "If you stat it, they will kill it."

[inkmeister]

Gronan, I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall reading somewhere in the DMG where Gary talks about a high powered party being able to challenge godlike beings. It seems he may not have been of one mind on the matter. Not that it need impact anyone else's game one way or the other, whatever he thought.

[inkmeister]

Am I correct in recalling, Geoffrey, that you once talked about what you view as the logical conclusion of your Carcosa world being something like tons of nuclear warheads being used against the ruling god of the world (some outer god I think), and then humanity destroying itself? I remember thinking it was both very gonzo and very nihilistic (and very awesome).

I never got the sense of Geoffrey as a power gamer, but definitely something like a "crazy gamer" or "imaginative gamer."

Hell yeah, go for it. As far as Rob Kuntz goes, I remember watching an interview of his recently where he talked about the original play test including players playing God PC's. He said something like "where do you want to go?" The players seemed unsure. He said something like "you are gods - point anywhere on the map and you can go there instantly." Obviously this game we play is a lot more open-ended - potentially - than some would like. I also remember Rob Kuntz saying that in his view, D&D Was always intended to be able to handle very high level game play. Putting it all together, it doesn't seem far fetched to think that PC's killing gods is unreasonable for D&D, just unreasonable for particular tables (I don't see it ever happening at my table; it's a miracle if you survive level one, let alone gain enough power to kill a god like being).

[Zulgyan]

I think it all comes down to how the people in your fantasy campaign world define what is a "god". I our world, people have called the paraohs gods, Imperial Roman cults have worshiped ceasers as gods, some modern religions revere their founders as god (Sun-Myung Moon for example). All now dead and certainly killable. Also, in greek mythology, Mount Olympus was right here on earth and gods were physical beigns (no human ever killed a greek god anyway IIRC, but they could be fooled or escaped from by humans). Later came monotheism and said those weren't actually gods.

In my campaign world, gods are very powerfull beings (bewteen levels 15 and 20 or so), usually inmmortal or with a couple of thousand year life span. Their scope is certainly limited: no god of "time" or "creation", but gods of bats, of waves, of a particular jungle or cave complex, etc. Or a god does not need to be "of something" - it could just be a very powerful alien creature. If they get worship or recognition as very powerfull beigns, they get to be called "gods".

And yes, they can be killed by a well prepared and equiped high level party, if they happen to ambush them without any of their cohorts. Why? It's just fun!

Also, was it necesary to write a whole well researched book as is Sup. IV just to say that 44th level Lords are silly? Wouldn't an artile in TD had addressed the "problem"?

[Falconer]

Nov 13, 2013 7:51:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Right in the introduction to GDG&H Tim Kask that the gods were intended to be UN killable.

I just re-read the introduction, and Kask does not say anything of the sort.

[stevemitchell]

"I just re-read the introduction, and Kask does not say anything of the sort."

And even if he did, that's just one man's opinion. So it's the way he plays his games; it doesn't have to be the way you play yours.

Anybody remember the Conan story "The Frost-Giant's Daughter"? Conan single-handedly dispatached not one, but two sons of Ymir. Ymir--a god, so his sons would qualify as demi-gods at least.

And Diomedes wounded Ares at the Siege of Troy, and Bard and Sigurd and St. George slew dragons (for those who think dragons should be as invulnerable as gods).

Oh, and a DOG killed a son of Yog-Sothoth. I wonder if he was a 44th level dog?

[kent]

My essential criticism of the very notion of 'killing gods' is that it shows an unimaginative scaling of power in a campaign world. 'Right, we've done Orcs and vampires, what else ya got?' Even a vampire should feel stranger to encounter and his motivations more difficult to understand than lower level beasties, rather than simply having his stats jacked up and more spells. By the time you reach gods their power and point of being should elevate them beyond brawling. Is that really all you can imagine for gods - fighting? To hurt a mythical Greek God you would oppose his will or kill a favourite of hers.

There is a serious problem to overcome in gaming, that mere stat increases of the player party and their adversaries create the impression that nothing is really changing. Has anyone played Diablo? By the time you reach a scenario involving vampires the whole encounter should feel different and an encounter with a god should be unrecognizable in its purpose to a party's low level encounters. This is emphatically a lack of imagination on the DMs part, and of reading, that he doesn't know how mortals interact with gods in past literature.

Take as an analogy the difference between hill walking and mountain climbing. Having a campaign with gods as monsters is imaginatively flat because it is like suggesting that after the party is comfortable walking up large hills we just give them pairs of magic boots and they can now walk up mountains in exactly the same way because mountains are just scaled up hills. In fact mountain climbing is a completely different exercise and all the more interesting for it.

[Zulgyan]

Of course you don't play gods as "just another monster, only with fatter stats". The encounter should feel very special, proper to the "divinity" of the being. Still, I think we are all but discussing the definition of "god", that could vary in each campaign world. As I said, in our own history the defitinion people have given to gods has varied in time and space, and not all cultures have stated that their gods are omnipotent (so, stuff could be done against their will, such as killing them). If you define gods in your game world closer to how God (capital "G") is defined in contemporary mainstream theology, of course such things would be logically unkillable.

On a side note, saying that people who disagree with you "lack imagination" is rude at the least and undermines your own argument.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 13, 2013 14:19:27 GMT -6 kent said:

My essential criticism of the very notion of 'killing gods' is that it shows an unimaginative scaling of power in a campaign world. 'Right, we've done Orcs and vampires, what else ya got?' Even a vampire should feel stranger to encounter and his motivations more difficult to understand than lower level beasties, rather than simply having his stats jacked up and more spells.

This was one of my big objections to later editions of the game we all love. Somewhere along the line, the dragon became mundane and folks ended up fighting demons and gods and other nasties that got stronger and better, which meant that character power had to get bigger as well.

It's a matter of gaming style. I've run games that were on steroids and games which were not, and prefer the ones which are scaled back, but I can say that either style can be fun at times.

[inkmeister]

People calling other people unimaginative? Ah, Kent must be back on the forums.

If you cannot imagine a meaningful game in which players confront gods, then who is the unimaginative one?

There are those who handle the "normal" monsters in the manner you describe (sort of a monster treadmill like so many video games), Kent, but there are those who handle them "imaginatively." Of course it can be the same with regard to gods. I don't think anyone has said anything about approaching gods as any old monster, in the manner of a game of Diablo. That's your interpretation.

It's unlikely any pc in one of my games would want to take on a god, and unlikely they would succeed if they tried, but I do like the idea of Gods being less than omniscient and omnipotent.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2013 14:19:27 GMT -6 kent said:

My essential criticism of the very notion of 'killing gods' is that it shows an unimaginative scaling of power in a campaign world. 'Right, we've done Orcs and vampires, what else ya got?'

Encounters with gods shouldn't be reserved only for high level characters. Gods should show up relatively soon. Cult of the Reptile God or the Thing in the Pit from B10 are great examples of early god-like encounters (as is the elephant headed god Conan dispatches). You start off with creatures worshipped by village cultists, move up to river spirits and the like before you encounter lesser deities. By the time the party encounters Thor, they already should have a dozen or so god-notches on their swords.

[Falconer]

I really like Jeff Grubb’s Gods of Toricandra (1976 proto-Dragonlance deities) because he essentially took the Chromatic and Platinum dragons from Sup. I and designed a whole pantheon of other super-monsters to go with them. I guess I define most gods similar to what most people would think of as demi-gods. I love the image of Robilar fighting Hextor in Castle Greyhawk. It doesn’t matter to me whether you define Hextor as a Demi-god or a Lesser god.

[geoffrey]

Nov 13, 2013 7:45:47 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

As to power-gaming; I've long wondered what the PC power levels look like in Geoffrey's games. Is 3-7 about right?

That's typical. We have played PCs as low as level 1 and as high as level 18. PCs of over 10th level have been played very rarely.

[geoffrey]

Nov 13, 2013 8:47:24 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Am I correct in recalling, Geoffrey, that you once talked about what you view as the logical conclusion of your Carcosa world being something like tons of nuclear warheads being used against the ruling god of the world (some outer god I think), and then humanity destroying itself? I remember thinking it was both very gonzo and very nihilistic (and very awesome).

I never got the sense of Geoffrey as a power gamer, but definitely something like a "crazy gamer" or "imaginative gamer."

Hell yeah, go for it. As far as Rob Kuntz goes, I remember watching an interview of his recently where he talked about the original play test including players playing God PC's. He said something like "where do you want to go?" The players seemed unsure. He said something like "you are gods - point anywhere on the map and you can go there instantly." Obviously this game we play is a lot more open-ended - potentially - than some would like. I also remember Rob Kuntz saying that in his view, D&D Was always intended to be able to handle very high level game play. Putting it all together, it doesn't seem far fetched to think that PC's killing gods is unreasonable for D&D, just unreasonable for particular tables (I don't see it ever happening at my table; it's a miracle if you survive level one, let alone gain enough power to kill a god like being).

Yes. If Carcosa were real, I would predict that the various races of men therein would use the high-tech of the Space Aliens to literally blow-up the Old Ones (one by one). Once Shub-Niggurath were nuked, the rest would be a mere mopping-up operation. You see, most of the monsters of Carcosa crawl out of Shub-Niggurath. Once you kill the source, the number of monsters would quickly dry up. This would also eradicate the power of sorcerers, since all their rituals involve dealings with Old Ones and their ilk. If Cthulhu is slain, all those rituals that summon, bind, torment, invoke, etc. Cthulhu ipso facto become worthless!

Thus I think that Carcosan men would over the course of centuries or millennia cause the Old Ones, monsters, and sorcery to go extinct. Then the 13 races would live in harmony, right? Ha! We must remember that the 13 races are not interfertile. Each is a different species. Thus the wars of genocide would begin. Best case scenario: One of the 13 races would succeed in causing the extinction of the other 12 races, then fall to intra-species wars amongst itself. Worst case scenario: None of the 13 races would survive these wars, leaving Carcosa devoid of intelligent life.

I, too, listened to that interview with Rob you mention. I remember his story about how gods move: "You're a god! You just point on the map, and you're there!" I am regularly inspired by his example in making D&D ignore all boundaries and limitations. If D&D weren't a limitless game, I'd be searching for one. Fortunately it is limitless, so I have my game of choice for life.

[kent]

Nov 13, 2013 15:08:23 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

saying that people who disagree with you "lack imagination" is rude at the least

No it isn't, that's in your head. I didn't single anyone out and I believe what I say. If you take offense at a general observation about being 'unimaginative' then you should consider that you are being too sensitive.

The point, which I presented in detail above, is that thinking about the most powerful entities in your campaign in terms of how they fight is unimaginative. It reveals that, whether you realize it or not, you are obsessed with fighting in the way you play D&D.

One of the things I hate most in discussions on forums and blogs is the spirit of dumbing down, for 40 year old men to champion playing the game as 12 year olds. Of course no one should take issue with whatever style each group prefers, that would be daft. But when arguments are put forward in discussion threads for playing that way then Im afraid I am going to point it out every time. I honestly think many gamers are in denial that their games are teenage simplistic and they see some sort of metaphysical genius in their play. D&D is an elastic game, it should grow to encompass your interests and knowledge as you age.

My selfish interest in this is that I am on the lookout for those who agree with me and game the way I do, because I find their comments and ideas more interesting.