After much procatinating, here it is...
the objective of this thread is discussion into the creation of a coherent, unified Mesopotamian pantheon. This stems from my disagreement from the canon that the Sumerian and Babylonian Pantheons are separate, since by all accounts they are essentially the same gods.
I'll start by listing the canon pantheons, as appearing in On Hallowed Ground:
Babylonian:
-Anshar (CE)
-Anu (LN)
-Druaga (LE)
-Girru (LG)
-Ishtar (N)
-Marduk (LN)
-Nergal (NE)
-Ramman (N)
Sumerian:
-Enlil (NG)
-Enki (LN) *dead*
-Inanna (LE)
-Ki (N)
-Nanna-Sin (CG)
-Nin-Hursag (N)
-Utu (CG)
Now, I have several issues to raise with the canon presentation of he gods, in addition of the separation of pantheons:
-Ki is apparently an earlier form/aspect of Ninhursag, but essentially the same deity.
-Utu as CG. Utu (aka Shamash), in all the sources I've read, is described as god of the Sun, Justice and Law, and is the one who delegates the authority upon kings. Sounds pretty lawful to me. This is made worse by having all info from canon sources boiled down to indicating that he "is mad".
(Most of my info comes from internet searches though, so there's a signifficant possibility it might be wrong)
Now we have one attempt at mashing together, from Sandstorm:
-Anshar (CE)
-Anu (LN)
-Dahak (CE)*
-Druaga (LE)
-Enlil (NG)
-Enki (LN)
-Gilgamesh (NG)
-Girru (LG)
-Ishtar (N)
-Ki (N)
-Marduk (LN)
-Nanna-Sin (CG)
-Nergal (NE)
-Utu (CG)
*Note: From what I've been able to gather, apparently Dahak was a figure from Zoroastrian, not Babylonian, mythos.
Finally we have Dragon Magazine 329, inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh:
-Adad (Ramman) (CN)
-Anu (LN)
-Belet-ili (Ninhursag) (NG)
-Ea (Enki) (LG)
-Enlil (LN)
-Ereshkigal (LE)
-Ishtar (Inanna) (CN)
-Marduk (LG)
-Nergal (CE)
-Ninurta (NG)
-Shamash (Utu) (LG)
-Sin (Nanna) (N)
Note that this list uses the Akkadian naming. I've listed the Sumerian equivalents where appropiate. Alsonote the changes in alignment for several deities. These seem to reflect better on the god's nature, from what I've been able to glean (ie, Ishtar as a fickle, capricious deity; or Shamash as the patron of Justice)
So, with these examples at hand, which one do you feel is a more faithful protrayal of this pantheon? Or would you propose an entirely different one? I'm open to "artistic" license, as long as it's justified in a convincing matter. Those knowledgeable in mythology are especially welcome/sought after.
There is a further question in this issue. In the purpouse of keeping some continuty, I'll assume Gilgamesh will be considered a power. Since FR's Gilgeam is obviously Gilgamesh, what should be the take in building the pantheon? In FR canon, he became corrupted, (switch to LE), and eventually was slain by Tiamat. However it's stressed several times that that was his avatar, cut off from his godly essence in the outer planes. Would his planar, "greater" essence have become corrupted like his earthly avatar did? Should he be considered "killed off for real" by Tiamat?
Despite my interest in non-classical pantheons, I don't know enough about the Summerians/Babylonians to even hazard a guess at most of this. I may have to come back to this on the weekend when I can spend several hours on Wikipedia, etc.
Regarding Gilgamesh (the only character I feel knowledgable enough to even hazard a take), I agree that the Gilgamesh of the classic "Epic of..." wouldn't be LE (although I could see the argument that he acted rather neutral once he became obsessed with his fear of death and his quest for immortality).
But ultimately, this falls back to the question of how does one handle gods-on-earth. I typically avoid placing avatars on my world as I like to keep my deities distant and a little mysterious/unfathomable. But if it is done, I suppose that the avatar could be viewed in one of (at least) two ways:
1) the avatar is just a mini-version (or manifestation) of the god and behaves EXACTLY as the god does would in the same situation
2) by taking a physical/mortal form (I say "mortal" as it is possible - though difficult - to kill an avatar), the deity is imbueing a portion of his energy into a semi-autonomous being (even if it one created on the spot).
If you take the later approach, it might be conceivable for this manifestation to veer in a different direction/alignment than the deity. This wouldn't be a common occurance, but it could be possible . Similarly, the avatar could be killed (with the deity just "losing" that portion of his divine energy - so killing off a large number of avatars of the same deity in different spheres - or whatever division one applies to how many avatars can operate at a time- might knock that god down a ranking)
Think of it like the character of Multiple Man in the comics. He can create duplicates of himself that he can later re-absorb (and gain their knowledge); but the duplicates he creates often have different personalities and motivations than the original.
As you implied, it also raises the question as to whether a corrupted avatar introduces corruption back into the deity itself. If so, I could see it being a major goal of fiends to corrupt these avatars (and to a lesser extent, the angelic might try to convert the avatars of the less noble gods) as these avatars are a weaker (from an alignment/morality point-of-view) form of the normally unassailable deity
Personally, I think that if I had avatars running around prominently on a world, I choose the later option as it seems to allow for a lot more plot ideas. But I understand if DMs would choose the former to maintain a consistancy in the gods
In the case of Gilgamesh, if the avatar from the Realms turned evil and the one from the "real world" turned neutral; perhaps the main god is starting to drift in terms of his alignment and portfolios (or desired portfolios)