6
\$\begingroup\$

Points of Light features a relatively small number of gods for a D&D setting. Most of them are either gods used in multiple settings (Bahamut, Moradin, Gruumsh, Corellon, Lolth), a fair deal from Greyhawk (Pelor, Kord, Vecna) and one from Forgotten Realms (Bane). But what about the other gods? The ones I could not identify are the followig:

Avandra, Erathis, Ioun, Melora, The Raven Queen, Torog and Zehir.

I know that in PoL, the Raven Queen overthrew Nerull and took his place as the goddess of the dead, but what about the others? Are they reused from earlier, more obscure D&D settings or are they just existing gods with a different name and paint job?

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$
  • Avandra is new.
  • Erathis is new.
  • Ioun is new, but the name seems to derive from ioun stones, which have been around since at least AD&D.
  • Melora is new.
  • The Raven Queen is new (although the idea of a mortal taking over the portfolio of God of the Dead is not new — see Kelemvor in 2E for just one example).
  • Torog is new.
  • Zehir is new, but the Neverwinter Nights 2 expansion Storm of Zehir featured him. Storm of Zehir came out after 4e debuted, but since it was an NWN2 expansion, it was based on 3.5e.
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It'd be useful to explain how you know these deities are new (e.g. developer commentary, the introductions of texts, interviews, personal research). \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jun 5 '15 at 13:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan How about "I was there?" We have a lot of people who can speak to the history of the editions from personal experience. Since this is a site of experts, that can be assumed as the default explanation for someone's expertise in lore. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jun 5 '15 at 17:05
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie If you mean physical presence, then I'm happy to see an explanation along the lines of I was on the design team when those deities were developed, and if you mean member of fandom during its heyday that's valid, too. Either way, I find it useful when someone mentions how he or she knows something, instead of or in addition to stating something as fact. Seriously and unsarcastically, is that too much to ask? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jun 5 '15 at 17:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Sometimes it's not too much, but I don't see the utility here. The truth or falsity of the answer can be independently verified by others who know (or those who don't but delve in and research), and that's what the voting system is for. If there's an error, that would be useful to point out in addition to possibly downvoting, but the answer isn't incomplete (i.e., unvotable, or fails to answer the question well enough) for lack of a disclaimer of knowledge source. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jun 5 '15 at 17:57
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I didn't say it was incomplete but that it'd be a useful thing to explain. The utility lies in knowing the sources so that were one to want to verify the answer, one would know what the answer's research already encompasses. (I'm totally good with a You're right until you're wrong policy, I'd just never heard it formalized.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jun 5 '15 at 18:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.