Talk:List of Greyhawk deities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of The World of Greyhawk Wikiproject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Greyhawk Portal

On 18 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pholtus for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to move it to its current title. Ben Standeven 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will have to look this up, but I think Pholtus is listed as Lawful Good. Yup he is in the Complete Divine as a LG not a LN.

Contents 1 Orcus 2 Merge? 3 Missing and non-canolical dieties 4 Greyhawk cosmology

[edit] Orcus

Would Orcus, as a Demon Prince, count as a Greater Power? According to the various books, demon princes and arch-devils don't generally count as Greater Powers.--Azathar 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Do we really need two separate lists for generic and Greyhawk deities, especially considering most of the deities on the former page are rather obscure non-PHB deities? I believe List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons should be merged into this page and if nobody objects I plan to do just that. Would anybody find it useful to have a separate list of the PHB deities, or possibly some kind of markup for them? --Maggu 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, BUT a number of those deities aren't Greyhawk deities at all (such as the Pearl Dragon, Opal Dragon, etc), & some of them are exclusive to Greyhawk (such as Ye'Cind & some of the hero deities) & shouldn't be on the generic D&D page in the first place. Perhaps a better solution would be to reserve that page for deities found in non-setting specific sources, such as the core books, Libris Mortis, BoVD, etc? I'll start off by removing the GH-specific gods from that page. Robbstrd 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Greyhawk is however the default cosmology in D&D, and the Greyhawk pantheon is the "D&D pantheon". I consider deities in books such as Libris Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness and others to be first and foremost Greyhawk deities, even though a number of them (notably Corellon, Moradin, Gruumsh and others) are FR deities as well. At the very least the deities in the core books and Complete Divine are Greyhawk deities.

Still, we do have a few problematic books. One such example is Deities & Demigods, which among others include Greek and Norse gods. Pearl Dragon, Opal Dragon, and others is another example. How about we rename "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" to "List of other Dungeons & Dragons deities", specify that it's for deities that doesn't belong anywhere else, and sort them according to source? (In other words more or less your suggestion, although I don't quite agree about what belongs there.) --Maggu 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair, though I'd prefer that the criteria for including deities on the Greyhawk list from non-core sources (Libris Mortis, et al) be more than simply apprearing in said source. For example, if the deitie's description connects them to an established GH deity (such as Evening Glory in Libris Mortis, IIRC), fine, but those without such context should be on the "List of other Dungeons & Dragons deities" instead.Robbstrd 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds both illogical and too vague to me. Deities in the same chapter could thus appear on different lists? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having the lists? Furthermore, I think there might be cases where it would not be entirely clear what list a deity belongs on. And for that matter, explaining the policy in the first place so that result is consistent doesn't seem entirely easy to me. --Maggu 14:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maggu, theres a fundamental problem with differentiating Grewhawk deities and these 'other' deities. If Grewhawk is the default campaign setting then do all deities that have an unspecified setting belong to Greyhawk by default? I think the best solution is a list of 'other d&d deities' that dont explicitly belong in greyhawk, but there needs to be a simple method of deciding what's what. -- Lewis 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite intimate with Greyhawk, but I realize few others are. How about this: If the deity appears in one of the three "core" 3/.5E books, or a sourcebook that says "Greyhawk" somewhere on the cover, then the deity belongs on the Greyhawk list. Otherwise, put them in the "other" category. Robbstrd 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words more or less your previous suggestion? My objections still stand. Let me give two examples to clarify. Libris Mortis has five deities: Afflux, Doresain, Evening Glory, Nerull and Orcus. With your suggestion Nerull would thus be on the Greyhawk list, since he's in both the PHB and the LGG (Living Greyhawk Gazetteer). Orcus should surely be on the Greyhawk list, but I'm not sure which sourcebook he might be found in so I wouldn't know where to put him. The other three goes on the "other" list. Does that make sense?

Second, Complete Divine contains a number of extra deities. However, Complete Divine is not a core book and it doesn't say "Greyhawk" on the cover, so these goes in the "other" list. Well, at least until someone comes along and points out that actually all these deities are in the LGG as well. Then they all get moved to the Greyhawk list. And so on. No, I'd much prefer that everything is put on the Greyhawk list, unless it's clear that it's not a Greyhawk deity, such as for the gods in the Norse pantheon. However, perhaps we should use the word "independent" rather than "other"? --Maggu 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on updating Greyhawk articles by the way. I havn't got any further than thinking I should write an article on Istus (since I'm playing a Cleric of Istus/Diviner at the moment), but now a lot of things look much better. --Maggu 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's an Istus stub already, so feel free. Robbstrd 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. --Maggu 14:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved yet? No one has said anything in a month. Can the tag be removed? BOZ

No. I've been meaning to write a followup on this. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I would prefer consensus and we don't seem to have it. I guess it would help if a few more people gave us their opinion. Personally, I still think this should be the policy for the Greyhawk list:

Greyhawk is the default setting and pantheon for Dungeons & Dragons. Unless its description says otherwise, any deity from an official D&D source belongs on this list.

Furthermore, I've changed my position somewhat. I think the list of deities of Dungeons & Dragons should just be deleted and not renamed (after its content has been merged with the Greyhawk list). I mean, what's the purpose of the lists? There seem to be little point in having a list with two or three entries. By the way, there aren't even any article for the Diamond/Opal/Pearl Dragon. Are there currently any deites beside those three that would not be on the Greyhawk list with the above definition? --Maggu 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to remove the non-human deities from the Greyhawk list which also appear in the generic D&D list. I would be a bit more cautious on removing the overlapping human deities (Kord, Pelor, Obad-Hai, etc), as for about 25 years they were very much unique to the Greyhawk setting, and only became available as generic campaign options with the advent of 3E. That said, there are numerous human (and a few non-human) deities that are still totally unique to Greyhawk, and it wouldn't make sense to merge them into a generic D&D deities list, as they are not at all used in the "generic setting".

I agree with the statement made by another user:

Greyhawk is the default setting and pantheon for Dungeons & Dragons. Unless its description says otherwise, any deity from an official D&D source belongs on this list.

I know it wasn't always this way, but the way it is now any product WotC publishes that is not for FR or Eberron should be assumed to be Greyhawk. However, for us historians, any of the 'original' Greyhawk gods from back in the day should be noted either on their own sublist or with ** next to them or something. (Bill, april 21, 2006)

Maybe a good starting point for a "List of Greyhawk deities" is the Living Greyhawk Deities Document. I think more "generic" Gods from Non-core D&D-products like Complete Warrior should not be on that list. I think, having two separate lists for "D&D Deities" and "Greyhawk Deities", which may have similiar entries might be a good idea. (Frank, May 8, 2006)

This issue is really a challenge to wrap your brain around, so I'm not surprised there hasn't been consensus on this yet. I think I would prefer to see the two lists remain separate, although somewhat re-worked. For me, the "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" page should list all deities for the current edition of D&D that are not FR or Eberron-specific. This would include the list from the PH, Deities & Demigods, and any other 3e and 3.5e publications that don't specify a different pantheon (Libris Mortis, Complete Divine, whatever). It would *not* include 1e/2e deities from Greyhawk or other sources that haven't been officially incorporated into the current version of the game (those currently listed in the article would be removed). The second list, "List of Greyhawk deities", would be more comprehensive as a historical archive list of all deities that have ever been introduced into the Greyhawk setting in whatever edition, ideally with an indication of the D&D publication(s) in which they were referenced as being part of the setting. My logic here is that the "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" becomes a quick reference for those folks interested in understanding the game as it is today, and the "List of Greyhawk deities" becomes a resource that wonky Greyhawk scholars and game historians can use as a true full-blown Greyhawk resource. Ok, I guess that's my 2 cents! Fairsing 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Fairsing's reasoning for keeping the two lists separate is sound.--Robbstrd 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As no one's commented on this in nearly a month, & there appears to be no consensus, I'm going to remove the merge tags.--Robbstrd 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing and non-canolical dieties

A lot of these are not Greyhawk, this can be fixed by sourcing every single one. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you offering to do so?--Robbstrd 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If not, please let me know which ones you think aren't Greyhawk, & I'll tell you where to find the information. The only ones who are not found in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer or the Living Greyhawk Deities doc are the Touv & Olman deities, which are found in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook.--Robbstrd 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't for me, but the sources need to be listed. It may be better if there was a way to separate the past Pre 3.0 LG Canon from the Post 3.0 Canon. I think a few dieties are from non-TSR/WOTC sources. Am I offering? Well this is a cooperative project, I will offer to remove anyhting unsourced, and they can be put back later. The main dieties are all from one source, and that source can be easily listed. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about separating out the 3e stuff. Separating that out is part of what I had in mind with my suggestion above under "Merge?" saying that I don't think we should merge the articles; but instead focus each of them differently. Fairsing 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As a separate comment, I'm not sure there's a great problem here or that this article requires a frenzy of citations. I did a quick scan of the article, and the list seems legit to me (speaking as a 25-year Greyhawk veteran). The "Not verified" tag seems like an over-reaction. I agree that there's some value to citing the sources for each of the deities, but the situation doesn't seem so dire as to warrant that tag (implying that the information may be highly unreliable, which it doesn't seem to be). For example, Beory was moved into a "Non-Canon" heading, but she is clearly listed in From the Ashes as a Greyhawk goddess. Also, the headings "Canon" and "Non-Canon" are difficult ones to use here; I changed them to something more generic. There's no universal definition of what counts as "Canon," so using those terms is likely to cause some major disagreements; I recommend we stay away from those terms in this list. Fairsing 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not verified is the only tag I had. Citation needed is a better tag. Beory was listed there because she is no longer canon in 3.5, Beory is supposed to be "Mother Oerth". Perhaps we can do Greyhawk and the DnD dieties list, without controversy. If we have sources, we are golden. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a deity, peron, creature, etc, hasn't appeared in a 3.5 product does not mean they've been removed from the setting. In fact, according to Steve Wilson, "Beginning with TSR 11742, Gazeteer, “canon” as a concept becomes a non-essential point. The official WotC stance of anything that is published by WotC with regard to Greyhawk in 3E is canon regardless of source (Dragon, Dungeon, modules, accessories, etc.)." [1]--Robbstrd 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New question: How shall we separate 3/3.5 Canon from unused Canon. Do we just ignore the 2.0 muck up of lists? Should we divide sections separate? How about LGCS lists? Dominick ^(TALK) 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I misspoke, 3e and 3.5 stuff is all canon. DnD 2e stuff is not. Pre 3e stuff should be separated. The references look good. I think the LG Dieties list 2.0 would be the latest and best mantained reference. I am going to use the <ref name="LGCS">[http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LG_Deities.zip Living Greyhawk] Deities 2.0</ref> and at the bottom insert a section ==Notes and references== <div class="references-small"> <references/> </div> so it is easier to source each one. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for everything 3e & 3.5e being "canon" & 2e & earlier not? I've heard no declaration by WotC saying that pre-3e GH material is no longer considered "canon."--Robbstrd 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Canon for 3.5 play? I guess thats the more precise way to say it, but really, you can make up the Church of Fred Fredburger and play it in 3.5 rules. I could mark up everything that is in the LGCS, or everything in 3rd edition books, and approach canon that way. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing canon with "tournament-legal". "Canon" is most often used in reference to storylines, characters, events, etc, not to rules.--Robbstrd 14:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can finish over lunch. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greyhawk cosmology

I started with the text of this page for my Greyhawk cosmology page on my own MediaWiki site, however, I have expanded upon it rather significantly based on research through the Greyhawk published materials and other Web sources. If anyone wishes to use the information on that page, it's still under the GFDL (most of my site is CC-BY-SA-2.5, but pages which started with Wikipedia content are specifically noted and distributed under the GFDL). Of special interest would be the ordering by pantheon and the inclusion of the Olman and Touv pantheons. -Harmil 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)