Inserting mythological gods into D&D pantheons

What are your thoughts on using mythological deities like Thor or Amaterasu in D&D cosmologies like the 2e or 3.X Great Wheel, the 4e World Axis, or the hybrid 5e cosmology, with all of the "laws of reality/magic" and creatures those cosmologies entail?

2e did this flagrantly with the "On Hallowed Ground" book, and 5e is pushing for this with the appendix of mythological pantheons in the Player's Handbook.

I think it is a little silly because those mythological deities and pantheons were "designed" under a specific cosmology and "setting" in mind. These tend to be mutually exclusive with one another, let alone D&D cosmologies, unless generalized into a bland paste of faux-comparative-mythology.

The "setting assumptions" and context behind each deity's history and relationships fall apart when shoved into a cosmology they were never "designed" to exist n. Additionally, when there are dozens of "creator gods" or "sun gods" (of a single world, no less), each one is diluted into losing their individual grandeur. "All myths are true" settings constantly forget that.

D&D 3.0's Deities and Demigods did the smart thing by dictating that each pantheon existed in their own custom-built cosmology, independent of one another. The Greek deities, the Egyptian gods, and the Norse divinities lived in different multiverses tailored to each pantheon, far apart from the wild and wacky 3.X Great Wheel.

Each time I have seen a mythological deity shoved into a D&D cosmology, it has always been something utterly superficial like, "This is Thor, son of Odin, god of storms and hitting things with hammers," or "This is Amaterasu, a sun goddess who locked herself in a cave one time (and is inexplicably a wolf ever since a 2006 video game came out)." It looks lazy.

I will concede that there is value in brand name recognizability, but if all you want is a god vaguely inspired by a mythological deity, why not come up with an original entity?

What do you personally think?

>if all you want is a god vaguely inspired by a mythological deity, why not come up with an original entity?

Originality's ok, if your players are fine with reading a ton of stuff. If they're not, it's probably easier to crib something that they can relate to and work from there.

No-one's going to have to think too hard if you say "oh no, Cthulhu just broke into the realm" rather than "Oh no, Oosyruthus, an eldritch ancient god that looks like a tentacle beast, just broke into the realm". The players are just going to say "so, basically Cthulhu, right?"

Brand name recognizability is a potent tool, but it can backfire easily.

Suppose you have committed to calling some eldritch ancient god "Cthulhu," just because said entity resembles a tentacle beast. After the initial introduction, every detail you lay down is going to be compared and contrasted against the original Cthulhu and Lovecraftian mythos, which will be especially awkward if one of the players knows more about the original Cthulhu and Lovecraftian mythos than you do.

It comes with plenty of baggage, in other words.

If, after introductions, it turns out that the entity's only similarity with its namesake is "It has tentacles," then that will come across as rather shallow, no?

>If, after introductions, it turns out that the entity's only similarity with its namesake is "It has tentacles," then that will come across as rather shallow, no?
It's just a pale shadow of the real Cthulhu, then!

If you don't want the baggage, go with your own made up things.

You can do halfway if you say "oh, it's like X god but with Y instead of Z" if you really want to, if it's your own thing.

It depends on who you play with. Using Cthulhu when your players know more about him than you do isn't a good idea unless you know they can just roll with it. You can also simply use some recognizable traits without getting too into depth with it because how relevant various details usually are anyway?

Didn't forgotten realms literally have the egyptian gods in it? didn't it also shoehorn some other gods (e.g. Tyr, Silvanus) into it's own pantheon?

Also i think 5e has a whole section of the player's handbook dedicated to using real gods in your campaign.

You are forgetting the fact that p'tah is the coolest god ever and needs to be in every setting.

...

>The "setting assumptions" and context behind each deity's history and relationships fall apart when shoved into a cosmology they were never "designed" to exist n. Additionally, when there are dozens of "creator gods" or "sun gods" (of a single world, no less), each one is diluted into losing their individual grandeur. "All myths are true" settings constantly forget that.

That assumes that one creation myth/cosmology is true and that the PCs can go planewalking and meet the gods.

It does not matter if one culture believes in a world tree and another a world turtle if players can not find out which one is actually true. Similarly it doesn't matter if Sol, Apollo, Helios, Amaterasu or one of the hundreds of other Sun gods/goddesses is "the" Sun god(dess) unless the players meet them.

Planewalking is a dime a dozen in D&D.
What do you think Plane Shift is for? Sigil? Shit, all of Planescape?

Not all campaigns need planewalking and even with planeswalking that doesn't mean the pcs can get any where near the god's realms.

>Plane Shift
Plane Shift was added as a way to let pcs attack demon lords in their own domains if a DM wanted to give them that option.

>Sigil
Sigil was created to be a hub world for a meta-campaign setting that was focused on the Great Wheel cosmology.

>Planescape
Was that meta-campaign setting and was one of two publish by TSR. I'm actually more a fan of the other (Spelljammer) than the "one cosmology to rule them all nature" of Planescape.

I run the Great Wheel as a matter of course, and I am in touch with a GM who runs the Great Wheel weekly as well, so you can see my issue when addressing how to rationalize mythological gods in a D&D cosmology.

>even with planeswalking that doesn't mean the pcs can get any where near the god's realms.

This matters little. When there are multiple gods of, say, death and the dead, and all of them can make reasonable claims of holding dominion over such a thing, then that dilutes the importance of each individual god of death and the dead.

There is your problem.

The Great Wheel is a kludge thrown together as a mostly quick fix mono-cosmology due to pre-3rd edition D&D not having set deities.

Your problem is directly caused by a cosmology that is at the same time to large and to small all the while being a complete mess.

It seems utterly disrespectful and demeaning, to be honest.

Spotted the pagan.

>I'm actually more a fan of the other (Spelljammer) than the "one cosmology to rule them all nature" of Planescape.
They're meant to work together you know.

He's just okay.

I think it can be good, if done well, but I hate it when it is watered down, lame versions of the deities. Like, if you tell me this is Thor, I want a Thor that is accurate. If he is just some guy with a hammer, or even worse, Marvel's Thor, why fucking bother.

>Thor
>hits guys with hammers
>makes storms
Honestly, what the fuck else do you need if you're not an autist?

"Cthulhu is just a tentacle guy, right?"
Why are you playing with these people?

>Also i think 5e has a whole section of the player's handbook dedicated to using real gods in your campaign.
that would be weird, because the only real God is almighty

Name recognition gives players somewhere good to start when trying to understand a completely made-up fantasy world. People's pre-existing associations with the name convey information as well as emotional content. My players didn't know what to make of a not-yet-named archfey in my campaign until one player somehow got the impression that she was Queen Mab, at which point they started treating her less like a piece in a game and more like a person to be respected and feared. So of course I rolled with it.

D&D is full of stuff adapted from mythology past the point where it can be called the same thing as the original, but the names have power. Let it be.

Queen Mab is literally just a name and nothing more in Shakespeare.

You're proving my point. Even if it's a relatively shallow character, people will react differently if it's a name they recognized. It's almost a relief to them to have something to go on other than a soup of gibberish made-up names.

I think this player recognized her from Dresden Files.

And then shit falls apart when they start asking how they're like/not like some character from a 2000s novel.

>players are actually asking questions and taking an interest in your game world instead of just being lost and bored

This is bad how?

Because then you're dealing with all this baggage you didn't want to deal with because you were just borrowing a fucking name.

That's why you choose people who don't show up apart from as "names to be taken seriously".

Like Queen Mab.

Some settings have rules for becoming a god. Just roll up a character inspired by your favorite mythological figure, bribe the GM (or just ask nicely) so they give your the appropriate adventures that would be required to become your chosen mythological figure, and boom, now your character exists as a "Real" god in your setting's pantheon in every way that matters. There are even whole games based around the entire party ascending to godhood as a new Pantheon that replaces the old one. Just like in every human mythology ever!

If you are the GM yourself, then you can skip all this and just homebrew in whatever real or imaginary deity you want as long as the players think it's cool enough to keep coming back next week. And if you are a setting writer, you don't even need players, if it's well written enough, somebody will buy it.

Many people have pointed out before, the way to become a new god in a roleplaying setting is remarkably similar to how many real world religions appear to have started, or claim to have started. Some conclude that all you need to be a good is belief, but I think there are kinds of gods that exist even when not worshiped. After all some people worship nature gods or treat science like a religion, but those things are specifically defined as things that exist even when not being worshiped.

I'll take the baggage. It's so much better than dropping the players naked into an open field.

>dropping the players naked into an open field

5 players, 1 GM.

Which is the bigger number?