Template talk:Deity

Worshiper vs. Cleric alignments
The template now contains a line "cleric alignments", but it displays (and says in the explanation) "Worshipers alignemnts". Which one is really meant? Faiths and Pantheons only talks about clerics alignments, so maybe that's where that comes from, but Faiths & Avatars gives distinct cleric and worshiper alignments (and even still different specialty priests alignment(s)). By the way, thanks a lot for including the primordials now! Daranios (talk) 13:10, January 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * See Forum:Organizing the Deity template. I believe the label was changed to the more general term to match the "Worshipers" field but the parameter name was kept for backward compatibility. I suppose I could run the bot over all the Deities and change the parameter names, but worshiper alignments5e is so damn long :-P. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:55, January 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link! The Forum thread leaves me slightly in the dark, though, as you talked a lot about clerics alignments there, but ended up with "worshiper alignments". Not wanting to complain or anything, but are there worshiper alignments given anywhere outside 2nd edition? Daranios (talk) 15:40, January 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if other editions have worshiper alignments in addition to cleric alignments. We went with the more general term to be inclusive. If all you have is cleric alignments, then just put those in. Discrepancies should always be explained in the text or in a note. If you have other ideas, reopen that Forum thread :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:36, January 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * :) Yeah, actually I couldn't resist and posed the question to the general public. Daranios (talk) 21:08, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

5e fields
Some of the 5e-specific fields in the infobox that have been ported from 4e are not used: dominion5e, sphere5e, and channel divinity5e do not have any 5th-edition meaning.

On the other hand, there are portfolios and home planes associated with 5e deities, so fields like portfolio5e and homeplane5e could be inserted. Thoughts? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 20:39, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when I added those fields I thought that 5th edition would follow the 4th edition rules, but that turned out to be completely wrong. I can rename dominion5e to be homeplane5e and sphere5e to be portfolio5e. I will check on channel divinity, because I swear I saw that in a 5e source somewhere. Are there any more that don't fit what we know about 5e? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:13, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * There are channel divinity powers in 5e (they're called "effects", not "prayers", p. 58 of the PHB), but they're directly linked to clerical domains and paladin oaths, not to individual deities like in 4e. So I guess it could be kept, but I'm not sure if it would be informative. Moreover, p. 18 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything discusses clerics that do not follow any deity in particular and are still granted channel divinity effects. As for other fields: power5e is not formally mentioned for most deities (and when it is, it's mostly en passant), but that doesn't mean it won't ever; also, there is no cleric alignment restriction in 5e, so cleric alignments5e is not relevant. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 22:58, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the Channel Divinity powers not being linked to individual deities in 5e. The Knowledge domain grants two Channel Divinity powers, Knowledge of the ages and Read thoughts, and specifically calls out Oghma, Gond, and Moradin as being examples of deities that grant this domain. I think we can keep the Channel Divinity parameter and just remove "prayer" from the label. How does that sound? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:32, December 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for cleric alignments, how about I just change the documentation to say that this is for "typical" followers of the deity in 5e, rather than restrictions? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:34, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, coming to think about it, I guess it would be informative to keep the Channel Divinity powers mentioned as well as the domain for each deity. As for the Channel Divinity parameter, I agree with that choice, since "effect" is more of a game term. I also like calling them "typical" alignments: that goes quite well with the spirit of 5e. In short, both choices sound great! &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 02:23, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been done. Let me know if you see any problems. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:42, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks great, thanks! Although I noticed that it still has the word "prayer" on the label. Was it on purpose? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 05:18, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoops, no. I fixed it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:20, December 6, 2017 (UTC)

Favored weapon?
As the description of this parameter says, 3rd edition exlusively has this in the stats for all deities. However, in 1st and 2nd edition there exists information for some deities in the descriptions what weapon priests may wield preferentially (and in breaking the usual "blunt weapons" rule for clerics), and what weapon the deity uses, or at least its avatar. Should we have fields for these editions here or should this information go into the article text only? (As usually I don't know how it is for 5th edition.) Daranios (talk) 18:40, June 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * It's easy enough to add the parameters if you think there are enough pages where it would be useful. Just make it clear in the text that the favored weapon is for the avatar, or specialty priests, or whomever. Anyone else want to chime in before I add them? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:27, June 12, 2018 (UTC)

Alias as an additional field
Are there any objections against adding "Alias(es)" as a field? As far as I know it is a regular stat only in 2nd edition. So it could be added as a specific 2e field. On the other hand this is very much fluff, being for regional, cultural or historical name variants, as well as identities taken usually as a result of impersonating another deity. So I tend towards having it as a general field. I don't know how much that overlaps with "Aspect", though. Daranios (talk) 20:36, October 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * The aspects field is also for aliases. Is there anything special about the 2e alias that needs to be separated out? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 23:19, October 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably not. For the aspect I jumped onto the first part of the description, missing the second half. Sorry and thanks for reminding me. But just to make sure: What I thought of as classical aspect example was Yondalla being considered a true deity until 3rd edition, and the revealed as aspect of Chauntea. On the contrary Shar took Ibrandul as an alias, first killing then impersonating him. They were unconnected deities before that. Does aspect fit here, too? And also for name variants like Clangeddin/Clangeddin? Daranios (talk) 07:01, October 20, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the "aspects" field can still work for theses cases because there really is no difference between an aspect and an impersonation&mdash;they both result in in spells being granted in another deity's name. Ibrandul should have his own page since he was a unique deity and his death should be noted on that page. Shar's page would have Ibrandul as one of her aspects and an explanation why. Deities come and go and come again, so we have edition-specific parameters to note their change of status. To make it less confusing, how about we change the label on the field to read "Aspects/Aliases"? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:30, October 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with avoiding unneccesarry complexity. So changing the field name sounds great, if it is not too long then. Otherwise I am also happy with using "Aspects", now that I know more about it. Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 07:25, October 21, 2018 (UTC)