Stat the Gods!!!


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

We all know our fine friends at Paizo don't want to stat the gods of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Now that's fine for some. But personally I want to see some stats for the gods! I always want to know just how powerful things are. What level spells can deities cast? Just how much damage can Rovagug do per round? If Asmodeus and Sarenrae were in a fight who would win? These are the types of questions that need answers!

That means we must stat the gods!

Here's some suggestions/ideas I came up with for stating the gods.

1) Personally I'd imagine the deities as being between CR 31 - CR 40. Gods like Pharasma and Rovagug would naturally be on the higher end of the spectrum. Not every deity is CR 40.

2) Ever deity must have some way it can be killed, other than Rovagug.

3) Every deity should have some AWESOME unique power.

4) If you could add tactics to best utilize a deity that would be fantastic!

You can stat any Pathfinder god or goddess you want! You can make as many deities as you want. You can put them all in one post or spread them out between posts. Be creative and have fun! That sounds really cliché doesn't it?

If you're a Paizo employee feel free to join on the fun!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually Rovagug can be killed. Just drop him on Azathoth.

(At least Rovagug v. Azathoth, Azathoth wins, according to James Jacobs.)

:D

... but carry on!

Dark Archive

Only problem, they are beyond imagination. Outside of MaGuffin or Huge Plot Device, they are impossible to kill.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

True deities in my campaign are essentially one with the multiverse. Trying to kill one is like trying to kill a star. The only way to ever truly affect it is to possess the same level of cosmic power and presence. And even if you somehow managed to kill one using a macguffin, some form of it still lingers behind and causes a cosmic shift in the fabric of the universe.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I too prefer my gods to be unassailable, I can't help feeling that the responses thus far have not been useful for Etc.Etc.

So, to make the attempt: To begin with, I'd assume that DR/epic is the norm - unless your weapon's +6 or better, don't bother. I'd also suggest that you use the same SR rules as golems - if SR applies, the spell won't function. They'd also have immunity to death effects and to effects tied to their portfolios.

Most would be Outsiders - I recommend full BAB and three good saves regardless of their monster type. You should probably start with the SLAs of the most powerful outsider type corresponding to their alignment, plus at-will SLAs matching their domains. If you're using Mythic rules, of course, even demigods should have MR 3 - I believe that's the one at which granting spells to followers is an option - and you should probably assume MR 9-10 for all but minor gods.


There really is no good reason to stat gods unless you're planning on some sort of cage match.

If you're doing this to know what kind of shenannigans one god can pull on another, the answer is whatever story you write. Anything you want to happen can be justified. If a god that's considered lesser takes out a god that should be more powerful, than think of a story reason for that to happen. Like the way Blind Hoder killed Balder.. (it was through the machinations of Loki)

If you're just looking to provide new targets for your players to kill, then a static defined statblock is useless anyway. Since you'd have to have players that are beyond the standard 20th/10 mythic tier power to do this, you'd have to create custom stat blocks to make an appropriate challenge to your players.


Wasn't there a Munckin Godkiller product?

I think Paizo's choice to have the gods being beyond stats was a good choice.

I remember when Gods, Demigods and Heroes came out and everyone had characters wielding weapons looted from gods. Bleah.
Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt, threw away the rule book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want to stat them, consider starting with the Salient Divine Abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been toying with an idea (not yet well-developed enough to codify) that things have Divine Ranks (which may or may not be related to Mythic Ranks) that essentially grant immunity to attack from things more than 1 Divine Rank below and make the balance of power extremely unfavorable even for things 1 Divine Rank below. So, lesser deities (on the level of Demon Lords) like Lamashtu was before ambushing Curchanus would have an extreme uphill battle to take out greater deities, and would have to arrange for some kind of ambush with intricate and difficult preparations (including luring the victim into hostile territory) and an attack with overwhelming numbers to be able to win; supposedly this is what Lamashtu actually did to Curchanus to kill him and take his divine status. Beings of lesser status than lesser deities have no hope of taking out a greater deity, regardless of how much power they have by mortal standards, because the interaction between divine ranks is non-linear in scaling, although such creatures might be used as cannon fodder to help weaken such a being in an ambush.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What would happen when one is touched by his noodly appendage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^I don't have an answer for you, but I've long thought that Azathoth in some of the artwork I've seen looks rather Pastafarian . . . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I don't have an answer for you, but I've long thought that Azathoth in some of the artwork I've seen looks rather Pastafarian . . . .

Well, that's a start. Now we know that Azathoth has levels in Vigilante.

Dark Archive

Once again, you can't. They are beyond imagination. Only the devs know truly.

Liberty's Edge

I always think, we don't need stats. Gods in fantasy settings are not comparable to mortals.
With having mythic rules (which I see as, kind of, cheats in pathfinder - I like them as a DM!) gods must be real powerful. Just imagine how powerful a single human being can get in Pathfinder (Level20/tier10)...

If you think this way, just imagine that gods can do whatever they want. They are immortal anyway (well, they obviously can be brought down by other gods), and therefore, why bother having a 4-page statblock, which you actually would never need...?!

I wouldn't buy such a product. Isn't it enough to know that gods can do as they please...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'l not stat a thing unless we use good old Wotc Primal Order... made especially to stat gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Once again, you can't. They are beyond imagination. Only the devs know truly.

Actually, the Devs (specifically, again, JJ), has noted they're generally around the vague vicinity of ~ CR 36.

The Devs explicitly prefer not to stat them up so they don't have to feel constrained for story-telling purposes about what the gods can and cannot do - I disagree with this (and, humorously, I find it runs contrary to the concept often touted in other areas of, "It's the restrictions that make the work better." so often used to justify a lack of other things), but it's a personal disagreement and that's fine.

Preferences and all that.

Incidentally, one of the gods was statted at one point - Achaekek was statted out to be a CR 30 monstrosity of dooooo~ooom... back in 3.5... though that stat block has subsequently been effectively retconned to be non-canon.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
So, lesser deities (on the level of Demon Lords) like Lamashtu was before ambushing Curchanus would have an extreme uphill battle to take out greater deities, and would have to arrange for some kind of ambush with intricate and difficult preparations (including luring the victim into hostile territory) and an attack with overwhelming numbers to be able to win; supposedly this is what Lamashtu actually did to Curchanus to kill him and take his divine status.

Intriguingly (to me, at least), taking a look at the mass combat rules, I can pretty much directly explain this to you right now.

Innumerable (or, maybe, ~400**) colossal hordes of roughly ~ CR 10 monstrosities* means a ton (i.e. ~400**) of CR 18 armies. These armies all had advantageous terrain, ambush, and battlefield advantage; used the dirty fighters, relentless brutality, and taunt tactics and reckless strategy (after all, what did Lamashtu care how many died - she got divinity at the end of it). It's possible that Lamashtu had some boons - I don't know, but Hit and Run and Merciless sound pretty good, and maybe Bloodied but Unbroken, if she's manipulative enough - and I'd suggest improved armor, improved weapons, ranged weapons, mounts, and any special damages it could gather.
Since they're outsiders, that's ~ 55 hp an army (varies by exact CR, of course).

That all adds up, a little.
OV +2+2+4 [+6 first round, thereafter +4] -> +14 first round, +12 thereafter
DV +2+2+2-4 [-4 after first round] -> +2 first round, -2 thereafter
Dmg +6
Curchanus can't use tactics, and often experiences - 2 to his OM and DV.

Curchanus, presuming he was a BIG god, made a nice, solid fine army with a CR 28 {36-8=28}. He would, of course, have Significant Defense, netting a nice +10 to his DV. He's probably got some nice stuff, so +2 to his OM and DV. Let's presume he's got an unheard-of d20 hit dice ('cause god; though, really, it's d10, 'cause outsider): that's 10.5*28 = 298 hp.

From there it's merely running numbers and watching trends - it is, from that point on, a numbers game. Most assuredly almost all of those swarms of demon dudes will undoubtedly die off. Lamashtu, however, will then take them, reform new armies of them, and rush them right back in.

The reason for this, of course, is due to how the Mass Combat rules work in PF. Zerg swarms work.

Curchanus may well have other tricks up his sleeve, (and many who hate such things will dismiss it outright or claim that you can't use rules to tell such stories); but so might Lamashtu - fact is, we don't know what tricks either of them might have beyond that (though I'd imagine it's stuff like reshaping the battlefield in their favor - the only trick being, with the two acting in opposition, their tricks would tend to cancel each other out, leaving the above scenario). In the end, it's pretty neat: you can, more or less by the rules, come up with an in-world explanation for exactly how a demon-lord managed to pull off one of the greatest and most horrible tricks ever. It might not be perfect, but it still gives you a decent gist. And that's incredibly cool.

At least to me. I know a lot of people will hate it. That's cool too: they get to play how they like, and that's awesome. :)

* This is not an exact number; I'm basing this strictly off the averages of CRs, going from 1+20 => 21/2 => 10.5, round down because there're more weaker ones, probably; it's not perfect, but hey, who cares - strictly hypothetical exercise. But really, you'd have a colossal army - or nine - that was composed of CR 20 creatures for a nice set of CR 28s and a several composed of CR 19s and so on down the line...
** This is an arbitrary number that I just made up just now. I dunno, it looks big. It's 2,000*400 = 800,000 creatures. That sounds like a lot. I'm quite sure you could do it with a llllloooooooooot less.

EDIT: Ninja!

Dryder wrote:

I always think, we don't need stats. Gods in fantasy settings are not comparable to mortals.

With having mythic rules (which I see as, kind of, cheats in pathfinder - I like them as a DM!) gods must be real powerful. Just imagine how powerful a single human being can get in Pathfinder (Level20/tier10)...

If you think this way, just imagine that gods can do whatever they want. They are immortal anyway (well, they obviously can be brought down by other gods), and therefore, why bother having a 4-page statblock, which you actually would never need...?!

I wouldn't buy such a product. Isn't it enough to know that gods can do as they please...

As for mythic, a mythic character is already most of the way to godhood.

Not only are they really far up the CR chain, but they can (if they select the "correct" abilities) have worshipers and clerics to whom they grant spells and domains, even casting miracles more or less by will and "divine" (mythic) power and will (presupposing they have the domain to do so).

That looks like a pretty solid basis for apotheosis, from my perspective.

But even mythic heroes and Golarion gods cannot do as they please. Like in many myths, the gods of Golarion have strict limits on their abilities. The difference is that, at present, they're left entirely arbitrary and undefined for "story reasons" - something that is not only satisfactory but preferable to some, but is extremely unsatisfactory and unpalatable to others. It heavily depends on your preferences for world building and game lore.

That said, as I understand it, the staff (or at least influential members on it) feel that the game as it currently stands doesn't work well at CRs above 30 or so, much less all the way to 36. To that end, they've said that if they get around to statting up the deities, it'll be with a new system and new idea from whence they hope to have a more streamlined approach or concept. I'd be interested in seeing whether they go with it. To me, at least, it'd be nice to have some sort of basis or guideline other than, "Eh, it's what you feel like." which... isn't satisfying.

That said, I understand many disagree. That's why it's to each their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I'm seeing the word "mortal" thrown around, I just wanted to point out that it doesn't really matter if a creature's mortal or not when plenty of creatures of CR 18+ happen to be immortal.

It's kind of hard for me to come up with any sort of statblock for a deity, because I honestly have no idea what they are really capable of in the first place. If I knew everything an individual deity can do then it'll be much easier to develop a statblock that's not some generic CR 31+ creature with big numbers.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You also have to add in other factors. Are older deities more powerful than newer, or are ones that represent vital aspects of life such as Nature, Revenge, Love, Evil, Good more powerful? All I know is that Pharasma is probably the most powerful being there is. Ravagog maybe, but then again he represents unbridled chaos so that goes into aspect of the world. There also has to be impartiality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Pharasma was explicitly cited as being more powerful than Rovagug, but didn't intervene against him - possibly because she's genuinely neutral and knew the other gods could handle it without her. (Really, on many levels, Pharasma is closer to being a force of nature than a person. XD)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always found it annoying how people tend to measure god's powers as some sort of single absolute. As noted above, when mentioned that Pharasma is 'more powerful' than Rovagug, people think that means that Pharasma could've smacked Rovagug like a red-headed demigod if she could only be bothered to get her pale butt off her throne. Leading to all sorts of justifications as to why she didn't.

I think the comparison of their powers so directly misses the point. Think of it like comparing a world champion MMA fighter and the President of the United States. Who is more powerful? Well, the President certainly has far more ability to influence world events, but who would you bet on in a fight? Similarly, I take the above statement to mean that Pharasma has much more power across the multiverse given her domains, but Rovagug has more raw power to just rip things apart. Hence the reason a teamup was needed between the gods to imprison Rovagug.

And even to a lesser degree, being more powerful doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win every time. Numerous factors can influence a fight. That's why professional sports are a thing. Sure, some teams are 'more powerful' but that doesn't mean that team just stomps every other team 100% every time. There's room for off days, bad strategies, homefield advantage, and plain ol' dumb luck.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I gotta be honest. I don't understand the obsession with statting true gods when there's already a breed of deity with discretely defined power designed specifically to be physically approachable by PCs to interact with or potentially kill. Demigods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to Lincoln Hills, Tacticslion, and GM Rednal for contributing! I appreciate it! And anyone else I might of missed, I tend to roll low on my perception checks. :P I'll use these suggestions to stat Rovagug! I'm also making a mental note to use the mass combat, I like the possibilities it presents for future campaigns.

Can anyone tell me where I can find the stats for Achaekek?

I understand that a lot of you don't want to deities to have stats, and that's okay. But the purpose of this thread is to make stats for the gods, for those people who like the gods to have stats. Like myself. I think being able to kill gods opens up new story possibilities.

Here is some examples of how I like to play with friends. I own the first edition Deities and Demigods. Me and my friends will often pick deities and then have them fight each other. Often times we’ll incorporate deity fights into our campaigns.
During one session we had an army and fought the tarrasque. Yet another time we fought a demon lord at level 1! (The demon lord wasn't putting any effort into trying to kill us and was just watching, we taunted it and got it to stand on a boom which blew up and killed it!) We once played where we were all various CR 20 monsters. Another game we played we all ascended to godhood. The thing is as a group we all had fun doing these things together. Our play style is a bit different than most people's, but what's important is that we have fun doing it!

Being able to kill a god creates many story possibilities. Where does a deity go when it dies? What happens to entire worlds when a deity dies? What new deities rise to take the place of the deceased? I'd like to explore these possibilities and many others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stats for Achaekek are right here. Unsurprisingly, it is very nasty indeed (starting with "doesn't take lethal damage from anything that isn't at least a demigod" and getting worse from there). XD CR 30 is basically "smite demon lords" level.

Incidentally, if you do stat gods, I suggest a "no basic weaknesses" power. They don't auto-fail saving throws on a 1, or auto-miss attacks, they're immune to things that could instantly beat them (death effects, and so on), unless done by another deity or something. XD


EDIT: bah! Ninja'd! ... by three hours! XD

Cyrad wrote:
I gotta be honest. I don't understand the obsession with statting true gods when there's already a breed of deity with discretely defined power designed specifically to be physically approachable by PCs to interact with or potentially kill. Demigods.

Because some people like to have the narrative scope well defined so that we have a decent handle on the a consistent in-game universe, even when dealing with such powerful beings as gods.

At least that's why I like it.


Level 17-20. Created exactly the same as a PC of those levels.

The Stronger gods [Saranrae and Asmodeus for example] are level 20.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once again, what constitutes a "stronger" god?


Perhaps age or heirarchy. I thought I had seen some reference to this somewhere in PF, but Golarion isn't exactly my strongsuit.

In greek myth it would be Zeus and Cronus.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How old is Asmodeus, no one knows. he says he is old, but can we trust him? Then what is the hierarchy, I don't see everyone following a leader of all Gods? Even Pharasma doesn't seem to lead much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Level 17-20. Created exactly the same as a PC of those levels.

The Stronger gods [Saranrae and Asmodeus for example] are level 20.

I'd like to respectfully disagree.

Consider that Lamashtu is the demon god/queen.

As a god, she is decidedly more powerful than her primary rival, the CR 30 Demon Lord Pazuzu. Pazuzu is the highest CR Paizo Demon Lord, equal to only Nocticula. Official Paizo Demon Lords stand between CR 30-25. Thus, as an official Paizo Demon Lord, he is more powerful than the highest CR Balor Lord, which are CR 21-25. Balor Lords themselves are more powerful than regular Balors, which are only CR 20. To compare, since CR=Level for PCs, a 20th level adventurer is a CR 20 encounter. Lamashtu is at the very minimum a CR 31 creature, although more likely CR 35-40.

Additionally, Arazni, a Lich and ex-Demigod, is a CR 26 (Mythic Rank 8) creature. According to Undead Revisited, she was more powerful before she died and was reanimated as a Lich. She is not and was not a major pantheon deity, and was likely less powerful than most deities before becoming undead.

Since Lamashtu is not stated to be significantly more powerful than Sarenrae, Asmodeus, and all the other listed deities, and Arazni was not some sort of undead super-god more powerful than Urgathoa, it can be inferred that all Pathfinder gods are a significantly higher effective level than level 20.

Also, for those interested, Cthulhu.


Yup, that's PF as written.

This is the homebrew forum, in my game the Demon Lord Pazuzu and Lamashti are no higher than CR 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:

We all know our fine friends at Paizo don't want to stat the gods of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Now that's fine for some. But personally I want to see some stats for the gods! I always want to know just how powerful things are. What level spells can deities cast? Just how much damage can Rovagug do per round? If Asmodeus and Sarenrae were in a fight who would win? These are the types of questions that need answers!

That means we must stat the gods!

Here's some suggestions/ideas I came up with for stating the gods.

1) Personally I'd imagine the deities as being between CR 31 - CR 40. Gods like Pharasma and Rovagug would naturally be on the higher end of the spectrum. Not every deity is CR 40.

2) Ever deity must have some way it can be killed, other than Rovagug.

3) Every deity should have some AWESOME unique power.

4) If you could add tactics to best utilize a deity that would be fantastic!

You can stat any Pathfinder god or goddess you want! You can make as many deities as you want. You can put them all in one post or spread them out between posts. Be creative and have fun! That sounds really cliché doesn't it?

If you're a Paizo employee feel free to join on the fun!

If you want a reference, James Jacobs has said Lamashtu could pop down to Golarion and turn millions of people into dretches if she wanted to. She doesn't because Sarenae would then pop down and do the same thing to all her followers(except with good outsiders) and nobody would win.

So if you do stat them you need to think on that scale. Deity special abilities are things that can effect millions of people or entire planets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main problem I would have with god stats is what do I have the pc's fight before they get to fighting a god? if gods start at cr 36 what do they fight from 31-35 and the story would have to be something like god of war right? Whole thing sounds kind of exhausting to me.
So I think the reason that iv heard before of their stats being kind of gamer porn where you can just go wow look at those numbers and abilities is as far as it would go for me.
I did however buy deities and demigods and at the end of a very long campaign gave out divine ranks soo I suppose it would have some uses.

so say mythic ranks going above 10 making every spell a god casts mythic adding 10th level spells grabbing stuff out of deities and demigods that kind of thing is how I would try to build deities if it was me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Basic/Expert/etc. D&D rules set (that started before AD&D, but then coexisted with it for a while) had published rules for going all the way to level 36 and fighting at least lower level deities.

And then, going outside the D&D lineage, we have Exalted, where you normally START being able to fight deities . . . .

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:
How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What would happen when one is touched by his noodly appendage?

Well, that's how gravity works, Manny. The FSM loves each and every one of us, and His appendages hold us against our planet so we don't go flying off into space. That's how gravity works. For much, much more about this amazing and completely factual phenomenon, you only need to consult the Book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster*, available at your local library and/or pirate lair. We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.

* Which I am not making up


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Suddenly, I am reminded of String Theory . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too much talk, not enough God Stats!

I don't have the time right now for a full stat block, but this is an ability I feel all Deities would have by default:

Deific Rolls (Ex): When a Deity would normally roll a d20, it instead rolls 2d20. Both d20's must roll natural 1's in order for the roll to auto-fail, if applicable, though a Deity can never "fumble" on such a roll. If 1 or both d20's roll a natural 20, it is an auto-success, or critical threat, as appropriate.

Afterthought: how many HD would a Deity have? Pazuzu has 35 at CR 30, so I'd imagine a Deity would have at least 45?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It certainly seems like a worthwhile endeavor - Tar-Baphon has stats for how he is now, and when he was alive he mixed it up with Aroden directly, after all. (Sure, he lost, but we now know that he threw the fight.) So yeah, if he could fight a god, then surely PCs could, and stats would be rather germane to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I've always felt that a project like this would best be done using the old 3.0/3.5 (those rules did get a mention in the official 3.0->3.5 update booklet, after all) rules for creating gods.

Don't forget that there's a notation in the Core Rulebook's contact other plane spell that says that the Inner Sea deities are all intermediate gods. So with that, Pharasma is probably a rank 15 deity, Rovagug would be rank 14, and the others would be rank 11 or 12, depending on how they're described.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I think the reason that iv heard before of their stats being kind of gamer porn where you can just go wow look at those numbers and abilities is as far as it would go for me.

I've heard this before, and this idea - that there's no reason to stats out gods except for indulging in gratuitousness (as though there's anything wrong with that where a personal project about game design is concerned) - strikes me as overlooking some more salient points.

World-building is typically done one of two ways. It can be bottom-up, which takes the idea that you should start with things that are most directly relevant to what happens during game-play, and extrapolate out from there, or be top-down, which is that you start by creating the most salient features of the world that would affect its development and current organization, and then extrapolate out from there.

Both philosophies are entirely legitimate, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. Bottom-up design, for example, is likely to quickly produce things that are immediately-useful, but can lead to problems of internal logic and self-consistency if there's no effort to keep a greater design ethos than ad hoc creation of what's likely to be of immediate relevance during a campaign. By contrast, top-down design lends itself to creating a world with a large degree of verisimilitude, but runs the risk of the designer losing sight of the practical elements of game-play in creating a cohesive world.

Making stats for deities is, to my mind, the epitome of top-down design. Being the major power-players of a campaign world, what gods can do directly influences how the world looks, in terms of their actions and reactions being the defining - or at least major - factors influencing the behavior of less powerful individuals, but also quite possibly on the physical world itself!

It's been mentioned here that politics is another consideration besides gross martial ability (which is what stats are taken to represent, though I don't think they're quite that simple), but really the two aren't orthogonal at all. As Carl von Clausewitz noted, war is the continuation of politics by other means, and this works in reverse as well. Political actions are undergirded and supported by martial power, either in terms of what can be offered as assistance (other resources can be offered as assistance, of course, but these are still safeguarded by martial prowess, otherwise an antagonistic force would come in and take them by force) or what can be used as a threat.

Personally, I think that this is a great way of engaging in world design, even if bottom-up methods have been in vogue for some time now, and doesn't deserve the level of derision (in the form of people suggesting that this isn't a worthwhile endeavor, or wondering why someone would think it was) that it tends to receive on these forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.0 had pretty solid rules for deities, so I think that's your starting point.

Many of the most powerful deities would be in the divine rank 16-20 category, granting them a host of absolutely insane powers.

On the tame end, they have 50 class levels, automatically get the maximum possible result on any die roll, and can do things like instantly destroy all non-deities in a 1-mile radius with no save as a standard action.

You really don't mess with greater deities.


Tacticslion wrote:

EDIT: bah! Ninja'd! ... by three hours! XD

Cyrad wrote:
I gotta be honest. I don't understand the obsession with statting true gods when there's already a breed of deity with discretely defined power designed specifically to be physically approachable by PCs to interact with or potentially kill. Demigods.

Because some people like to have the narrative scope well defined so that we have a decent handle on the a consistent in-game universe, even when dealing with such powerful beings as gods.

At least that's why I like it.

I don't see however the need for wargaming stats as a prerequisite for that narrative handle. Thomas Bullfinch seemed to manage quite well without them.


Alzrius wrote:
Making stats for deities is, to my mind, the epitome of top-down design. Being the major power-players of a campaign world, what gods can do directly influences how the world looks, in terms of their actions and reactions being the defining - or at least major - factors influencing the behavior of less powerful individuals, but also quite possibly on the physical world itself!

It's one way of top-down, but not the only way. Top/down can start with just the continents and countries, and the gods as opposed to being the bealls and end alls of the works, can actually be at the bottom of the evolutionary process. After all if you design your gods to depend on the beliefs of their worshipers, pantheons may actually diminish or disappear if their believers are conquered or eliminated in war.

Lankhmar's Street of the Gods is an excellent example. The temples of the Gods advance, and decrease in position and prominence to the exact proportion of how their faiths are doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It's one way of top-down, but not the only way. Top/down can start with just the continents and countries, and the gods as opposed to being the bealls and end alls of the works, can actually be at the bottom of the evolutionary process. After all if you design your gods to depend on the beliefs of their worshipers, pantheons may actually diminish or disappear if their believers are conquered or eliminated in war.

Lankhmar's Street of the Gods is an excellent example. The temples of the Gods advance, and decrease in position and prominence to the exact proportion of how their faiths are doing.

I didn't say that it was the only way, just that I think that starting with what the gods (or other most powerful beings in the setting) can do is the epitome of top-down design.

That said, I disagree that gods being affected by issues of requiring beliefs puts them at the "bottom" of the process; being affected by something doesn't mean that you're subordinate to that thing. That's particularly the case when the issue involved is one that's a gradual process, one that requires a large number of people to actuate, and isn't something that can be easily coordinated among them.

The issue of a god's power being influenced by current issues of how widespread their faith is is likely to be an issue that spans years, if not decades or centuries (outside of massive disasters affecting the near-total base of their worship, at which point the deity is likely to become personally involved, since their own life is effectively on the line). When compared to the fact that a deity is an exceptionally powerful entity that can take quick, decisive action that will have an immediate impact on others, then it's hard to rate such issues of gradual erosion as being of greater importance when ranking the entities of power that ultimately give shape to a campaign world.

Now, those can be aspects of a world's historical context, but in terms of designing who/what is a major player on the campaign world-stage right now (e.g. at the moment the campaign starts), that's not likely to factor very highly in determining why the world is in the state that it's in. At most, it'll be one issue that the gods take into account when performing their undertakings, but it's not likely to be some sort of serious check on their influence.


Alzrius wrote:


That said, I disagree that gods being affected by issues of requiring beliefs puts them at the "bottom" of the process; being affected by something doesn't mean that you're subordinate to that thing. That's particularly the case when the issue involved is one that's a gradual process, one that requires a large number of people to actuate, and isn't something that can be immediately done or undone.

The issue of a god's power being influenced by current issues of how widespread their faith is is likely to be an issue that spans years, if not decades or centuries (outside of massive disasters affecting the near-total base of their worship, at which point the deity is likely to become personally involved, since their own life is effectively on the line). When compared to the fact that a deity is an exceptionally powerful entity that can take quick, decisive action that will have an immediate impact on others, then it's hard to rate such issues of gradual erosion as being of greater importance when ranking the entities of power that ultimately give shape to a campaign world.

Now, those can be aspects of a world's historical context, but in terms of designing who/what is a major player on the...

Again it's how you write things. In Fritz Leiber's setting of Nehwon, the relative power of Gods is an intensely volatile affair, with major upsets happening fairly often. the faith that's at the glorious temple at the top of the street, may be reduced to being the hovel at the lower end in the course of a single story. (Now of course I'm talking about the Gods IN Lankhmar.. the ones that you'd actually have clerics for, as opposed to the Gods OF Lankhmar... those mummified figures whose only worship is an occasional basket of fruit tossed in the door and are only seen when the city itself is under mortal threat... they have no worshippers to speak of.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Man, you know what I hate? When a narrative has internal consistency for all creatures and things following the same basic rules. It sucks. I like my stuff more 'because I say so' with justifications after the fact instead of having the rules clear before hand, and anyone who likes stuff to work differently must not be enjoying things in the right way."

I mean, I know that's not what people are saying or actually attempting to imply. It just kind of comes off that way sometimes with repeated, "But you don't need this stuff." after it's been made clear that people like things.

Of course you don't need wargaming stats as a prerequisite. That's why I'm not playing a wargame.

(Mass Combat stats, on the other hand, I'm definitely using, because those are actually directly useful in informing us in how the actual narrative of the in-game-world happened in its own history.)

It's also worth noting: you don't need "wargaming" stats as a "prerequisite" to go play heroes slaying trolls or whatever. There are an absolute ton of games (And, perhaps, if you printed them all out, you could come close to a literal "ton"? I find it less likely, but I can't say for sure, as there have been a lot.) and you can use any of them, ranging from war games to card games to games with or without dice or paper or hand signs or costumes or props or whatever the heck else you like.

The argument, "You don't need it." has always come off as hollow because, in the end, we're all playing a made up game of make-believe and you don't really "need" any of this stuff for a good made up game of make-believe with your friends.

But the difference between an adult game and a kids game is that in the kids' games the rules tend to be fluid and arbitrary and shift according to the needs of whoever happens to be telling the story right now plus a tendency toward a lack of maturity (in both subject and story-telling methods). The more adult versions tend to be internally consistent and those stories often more mature (in subject and story-telling methods).

(These are, of course, tendencies, not absolutes.)

One of the methods RPGs assist in making the latter happen is by having a system of rules that govern direct interactions between the characters, creatures, objects, and their environments.

Definitely not necessary for every case. And that's a very good thing to remember!

But arbitrating which cases aren't necessary is directly mandating which kind of play-style is "correct" - it's telling someone that their desires and preferences are "less" important than your own. And that... is less cool. It's also not usually intended to come off that way. But it's so consistent in these threads ("Hey, since Paizo doesn't want to, I'd like to stat the gods." is almost always followed immediately by, "Don't do it, your idea is bad and you should feel bad."), it's worth mentioning again. It's totally valid if a table or group doesn't want stats for their gods. It's also totally valid if they do.

Necessary? Not strictly speaking. But neither is the game we're all here to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

"Man, you know what I hate? When a narrative has internal consistency for all creatures and things following the same basic rules. It sucks. I like my stuff more 'because I say so' with justifications after the fact instead of having the rules clear before hand, and anyone who likes stuff to work differently must not be enjoying things in the right way."

I mean, I know that's not what people are saying or actually attempting to imply. It just kind of comes off that way sometimes with repeated, "But you don't need this stuff." after it's been made clear that people like things.

Of course you don't need wargaming stats as a prerequisite. That's why I'm not playing a wargame.

(Mass Combat stats, on the other hand, I'm definitely using, because those are actually directly useful in informing us in how the actual narrative of the in-game-world happened in its own history.)

It's also worth noting: you don't need "wargaming" stats as a "prerequisite" to go play heroes slaying trolls or whatever. There are an absolute ton of games (And, perhaps, if you printed them all out, you could come close to a literal "ton"? I find it less likely, but I can't say for sure, as there have been a lot.) and you can use any of them, ranging from war games to card games to games with or without dice or paper or hand signs or costumes or props or whatever the heck else you like.

The argument, "You don't need it." has always come off as hollow because, in the end, we're all playing a made up game of make-believe and you don't really "need" any of this stuff for a good made up game of make-believe with your friends.

But the difference between an adult game and a kids game is that in the kids' games the rules tend to be fluid and arbitrary and shift according to the needs of whoever happens to be telling the story right now plus a tendency toward a lack of maturity (in both subject and story-telling methods). The more adult versions tend to be internally consistent and...

Yes, but here's the question... unless you intend to have your heroes fight and slay the gods, what's the point of shackling them to the same construction rules of monsters and player characters? If the point is to set them up in relative power levels to each other, narration can do that alone without attaching mechanics to it.

Then again IF you're intent is to have heroes vs. gods battles than referencing something like either the old DDG or Primal Order books might be what's needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Again it's how you write things. In Fritz Leiber's setting of Nehwon, the relative power of Gods is an intensely volatile affair, with major upsets happening fairly often. the faith that's at the glorious temple at the top of the street, may be reduced to being the hovel at the lower end in the course of a single story. (Now of course I'm talking about the Gods IN Lankhmar.. the ones that you'd actually have clerics for, as opposed to the Gods OF Lankhmar... those mummified figures whose only worship is an occasional basket of fruit tossed in the door and are only seen when the city itself is under mortal threat... they have no worshippers to speak of.)

Fair enough; I'm presuming some basic adherence to the presumptions in D&D in general, and Pathfinder in particular (notwithstanding campaign assumptions that deviate from these, such as, say, D&D Lankhmar). If you alter those, then everything else will change accordingly; I doubt most gods would have stats in, say, Eberron, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Yes, but here's the question... unless you intend to have your heroes fight and slay the gods, what's the point of shackling them to the same construction rules of monsters and player characters? If the point is to set them up in relative power levels to each other, narration can do that alone without attaching mechanics to it.

Then again IF you're intent is to have heroes vs. gods battles than referencing something like either the old DDG or Primal Order books might be what's needed.

Well, there's:

Tacticslion wrote:

The Devs explicitly prefer not to stat them up so they don't have to feel constrained for story-telling purposes about what the gods can and cannot do - I disagree with this (and, humorously, I find it runs contrary to the concept often touted in other areas of, "It's the restrictions that make the work better." so often used to justify a lack of other things), but it's a personal disagreement and that's fine.

Preferences and all that.

Tacticslion wrote:

In the end, it's pretty neat: you can, more or less by the rules, come up with an in-world explanation for exactly how a demon-lord managed to pull off one of the greatest and most horrible tricks ever. It might not be perfect, but it still gives you a decent gist. And that's incredibly cool.

At least to me.

Tacticslion wrote:

But even mythic heroes and Golarion gods cannot do as they please. Like in many myths, the gods of Golarion have strict limits on their abilities. The difference is that, at present, they're left entirely arbitrary and undefined for "story reasons" - something that is not only satisfactory but preferable to some, but is extremely unsatisfactory and unpalatable to others. It heavily depends on your preferences for world building and game lore.

<snip>
To me, at least, it'd be nice to have some sort of basis or guideline other than, "Eh, it's what you feel like." which... isn't satisfying.
Tacticslion wrote:

Because some people like to have the narrative scope well defined so that we have a decent handle on the a consistent in-game universe, even when dealing with such powerful beings as gods.

At least that's why I like it.

This post

Tacticslion wrote:
One of the methods RPGs assist in making the latter happen is by having a system of rules that govern direct interactions between the characters, creatures, objects, and their environments.

I mean, I'd like to think "the point" is fairly self-evident and well-made (multiple times) throughout the thread.

Just in case it's not clear, however, let's make this a little more clear.

Having the gods working under the same basic sets of rules (with the acknowledged possibility of adding something like mythic or divine ranks or something on top) informs me that the world functions in an internally consistent manner. This is something that I, personally, derive great satisfaction from.

It's one of the reasons that I like 3.5 and Pathfinder instead of 4E: PCs, NPCs, and monsters all have base attack bonuses and saves and skill points derived from their HD. What kind of HD those individuals have vary - that's fine. But they all follow the same patterns, the same internally consistent logic. If any of them wants to climb a wall, they all have to make the DC. That check could be handwaived, yes - but if the creature has a Climb modifier or -2 due to a Str of 8 and the DC is 15... it's going to get weird fast, if the GM just ignores that, barring unusual circumstances.

In every case, the game always informs, "What can the <character/creature/object> do?" and that's a really cool thing. I like that. I like to extend that to all the players and parts. What are the upper limits of the system? I find the response, "Eh, it's irrelevant; make it up." to be very... unsatisfying. It's exactly 4E's response:
- Q: "What was a god capable of?"
- A: "Outside of combat? Eh... make it up." 4E Adds: "(Oh, but here are skills. They're underwhelming.)"

You can make something internally consistent, there. But without guidance, what I develop to be internally consistent will not automatically be internally consistent with whatever the developers working on Paizo stuff develop to be internally consistent (which, given the number of retcons made to their stuff anyway*, doesn't seem to be as high a priority for them over-all).

That's because, lacking that guidance, my guesses will definitely differ from their guesses, and anyone who expects differently is simply wrong: a quick perusal through what's been published already, what's been retconned, what's been said by developers and how it's been edited, altered, changed, and printed is direct proof of that. People are just bad at guessing what someone else was thinking sometimes, even when they are hypothetically working toward the same goal and on the same team.

I like that consistency. It feels nice. It's a fun game to play.

Many don't. That's fine. They prefer the freedom (or some other aspect, feeling, or apparent element; fill in the blank as you see fit) to do what they want with deities, and would feel shackled (or some such) by an official rules set.

That... kind of sucks for me, I suppose, because it looks like Paizo mostly agrees with them.

Oh well. At least someone gets to enjoy their game the way they like it (which is awesome!), and the other one gets to home brew their stuff the way they like it (or at least make their best go at it, even if with people asking, "What's the point?").

The point is that it's neat and creates an internally consistent world with something easily referenced and less arbitrary than just relying on personal feelings for the day or whims of the now.

EDIT: Oh, and the point is you can also have them fight stuff (or avoid fighting stuff) and create a coherent narrative out of it. That's always cool, too. :)

* This isn't wrongful or bad or whatever of them, by the way, and I'm not saying it is, or trying to imply it is. Instead, it's worth pointing out as a relative side of this conversation in differences of approach to game philosophy and expectations and preferences. It seems that some things are important to "get right" but I'm really not sure what those things are anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As been said before... locking the gods into fixed stats makes an official rule which is suitable for some campaigns, and highly unsustainable for others.

Paizo can do all you expect them to do by maintaining a narrative consistency that's not dependent on stats. Iomedae backing a succesful campaign in the Worldwound and a disastrously losing one in Cheliax is entirely within Paizo's narrative consistency which may well determine that her interference in the Worldwound may well come at a price to interests she backs elsewhere... especially a nation that Asmodeus has personal interests in.

So making Iomedae a 35th level Paladin sounds impressive, but not so much so for the campaign of 50th level godslayers. (or 50th for the 75th level group) For them, an ambitious GM can (and should) create an Iomedae that's worthy of their mettle. He'll have to do using tools well outside of the scope of anything Paizo has created... but they are out there.

If you're going that way, you have to acknowledge that what you're doing IS going to be highly idiosyncratic and give up the notion that you need to be compliant with Paizo's story model, and that's not nearly the tragedy you would imply. It just means you're making your own.

Because if you are going to have super mega level campaigns, then you are, or should be the kind of creator who's learned to extrapolate beyond material handed to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do this? because fiddling with rulesets is fun!

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Stat the Gods!!! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.