Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Asra 12-16-07, 09:55 PM	Yeah... Does anyone know where I can find information on this Abyssal layer? It seems like a pretty interesting layer, and is ruled by Munkir and Nekir. I couldn't find any solid information on my own, so I decided to ask here! Any info is much appreciated!
Shemeska the Marauder 12-17-07, 12:02 PM	There isn't much. They're inspired by the beings of the same names from Arabian myth. I'm not too terribly versed in the original source material, but I believe that their role was as angels who watched over a decidedly harsher version of purgatory. But if anyone else knows the origins better, I'd appreciate learning some more as well. Also, they appear on the cover of the Living Greyhawk Journal [Volume 1, Number 3; Spring 591 CY, February 2001].
ripvanwormer 12-17-07, 08:17 PM	Here's a link (http://www.islaam.org/Aqaa'id/Aqaaid-19.htm). Here's another (http://darvish.wordpress.com/2006/07/04/the-judgment-of-god-a-sufi-tale/). Yet another (http://www.haqaonline.com/articles/article.php?id=in2&type=indepth). Munkir and Nakir, however, the angels who question the dead when they are assigned to the grave, looked upon the scene of the two men and sighed. ‘Surely,’ said Munkir ‘here at least the true gold may be seen from the false. These two may be judged, though their end is not yet come. God will have the greater, and Satan the less.’ ‘Alas! It must be so,’ agreed Nakir. ‘True gold is the most rare, and therefore are the fields of heavens spacious indeed, while the halls of Hell are filled to bursting, overflowing even the deepest pits. When people leave after a burial the dead person, lying in his grave, hears the sound of the retreating footsteps. Just then appear two angels savaging the Earth with their terrible teeth. They look terribly dreadful. They have black bodies with very dark eyes the size of big cauldrons and very long teeth. One of the angels is Munkir while the other is called Nakeer. They shake the dead ruthlessly into awakening and start interrogating him in a cruel and callous tone. Judging from the cover of the Living Greyhawk Journal #3, they are wingless and demonic, tall and thin. One has ebony skin and the other is an albino. They could be fallen celestials, but that's a bit cliche. I'd either make them true tanar'ri or unfallen (though not necessarily good) celestials who simply look terrifying to mortal eyes.
WombleHunter 12-18-07, 11:13 AM	unfallen (though not necessarily good) celestials Que?
zook1shoe666 12-18-07, 01:08 PM	Que? celestials that are not Good, but are still "Celestials"
The Ubbergeek 12-18-07, 01:20 PM	celestials that are not Good, but are still "Celestials" Isn't that a bit... oxymoron? Celestials are outsiders, they HAVE to be good, or they are fallen/went rogue...
Tovec 12-18-07, 02:23 PM	celestials that are not Good, but are still "Celestials" If I had to guess I would assume its like having the Good subtype without being good. Read the subtype descriptions. Creatures with the good subtype retain their subtype even if they become evil. Celestial is a type but I think the rule applies. Maybe: Outsider (good) with alignment CE (or any other alignment needed).
zook1shoe666 12-18-07, 03:31 PM	Outsider (good) with alignment CE (or any other alignment needed). exactly
Shemeska the Marauder 12-18-07, 07:27 PM	If I had to guess I would assume its like having the Good subtype without being good. Read the subtype descriptions. Creatures with the good subtype retain their subtype even if they become evil. Celestial is a type but I think the rule applies. Maybe: Outsider (good) with alignment CE (or any other alignment needed). Not always. For some creatures it's nonsensical for them to do so. I strongly doubt the subtype rules as written were done so with any consideration placed towards fallen celestials and/or risen fiends. Example: Zalatian XXIII a fallen trumpet archon (originally in 2e's 'Hellbound' who appears in 3e's 'Lord of the Iron Fortress') lacks the good subtype but retains the law subtype when he fell from LG to LE. Had I had room in Dragon 351 to include stats for Felthis ap Jerran (the risen ultroloth), I would have likewise dropped the evil subtype to reflect the metaphysical ramifications that a true alignment shift would have for a being literally composed of alignment. But as for the topic about non-Good celestials, it can work from the standpoint of angels/aasimon not actually being representatives of an abstract Good alignment, but extensions of the will of a patron deity. Some angels while nominally celestials might embody a distinctly malevolent aspect of their god, or serve a necessary evil to promote the overall good goals of that patron.
Deinos 12-18-07, 07:27 PM	Using a more Islam-inspired view of the upper planes and the forces of good in general is quite the hoot, though even a Judaeo-Christian one is still vastly different from regular D&D.
sciborg3 12-19-07, 12:32 AM	One has ebony skin and the other is an albino. Now that is interesting given the Verin/Ztefano personalities....runs off to ponder the implications.
Asra 12-19-07, 12:56 PM	Hmm! Thats pretty interesting. Thanks for all the information! If anyone has anymore, keep it coming. Though I think I've got enough to work with should I use it. The whole Verin/Ztefano came across to me too, does anyone know if they can find the picture of the two of them from Living Greyhawk #3?
ripvanwormer 12-19-07, 04:31 PM	You can see the picture here: http://paizo.com/dungeon/products/issues/2001/v5748btpy73a4
Tovec 12-20-07, 10:05 PM	Not always. For some creatures it's nonsensical for them to do so. I strongly doubt the subtype rules as written were done so with any consideration placed towards fallen celestials and/or risen fiends. Example: Zalatian XXIII a fallen trumpet archon (originally in 2e's 'Hellbound' who appears in 3e's 'Lord of the Iron Fortress') lacks the good subtype but retains the law subtype when he fell from LG to LE. Had I had room in Dragon 351 to include stats for Felthis ap Jerran (the risen ultroloth), I would have likewise dropped the evil subtype to reflect the metaphysical ramifications that a true alignment shift would have for a being literally composed of alignment. But as for the topic about non-Good celestials, it can work from the standpoint of angels/aasimon not actually being representatives of an abstract Good alignment, but extensions of the will of a patron deity. Some angels while nominally celestials might embody a distinctly malevolent aspect of their god, or serve a necessary evil to promote the overall good goals of that patron. What are Aasimon? I know I know but I can't remember. I can't comment on 2e or 3e practices but in my 3.5 MM it says: Good Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the good-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above). Given the description; don't ask me to explain why Baalzebul has the evil subtype when it says he used to be good. I just know what the subtype description says that they keep it even if they are evil. A fallen celestial retains their good subtype. About your example? Even if the angel performs evils doesn't make it evil. I know it doesn't make sense. When I said "Read the subtype descriptions." I oddly enough meant for you to do the work and look at what I was referencing instead of just shooting it down.
Kain_Darkwind 12-21-07, 06:04 PM	What are Aasimon? I know I know but I can't remember. Celestials of the 'angel' subtype in 3.5. Planescape called them aasimon. Given the description; don't ask me to explain why Baalzebul has the evil subtype when it says he used to be good. I just know what the subtype description says that they keep it even if they are evil. A fallen celestial retains their good subtype. About your example? Even if the angel performs evils doesn't make it evil. I know it doesn't make sense. When I said "Read the subtype descriptions." I oddly enough meant for you to do the work and look at what I was referencing instead of just shooting it down. The rules are one interesting point of the discussion. The fact that most fallen angels lose their subtype is another. Saureya, the fallen astral deva in the Savage Tide Adventure Path (issue 147) maintained his Good subtype, despite being Chaotic Neutral. The one Shem references in Lord of the Iron Fortress didn't. Nor Baalzebul (in fact, he lost the archon subtype too, gaining the baatezu subtype) nor Adrimarchus. Savage Species gives creatures the option of changing their subtypes. Perhaps similar rituals were worked on the Lord of the Seventh and the fallen Trumpet.
zook1shoe666 12-21-07, 08:33 PM	maybe some of them have fallen so far and for so long, that they have slowly changed into their current subtypes.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-21-07, 10:27 PM	maybe some of them have fallen so far and for so long, that they have slowly changed into their current subtypes. Zalatian XXIII has only been a fallen archon for under a decade in-game. His fall was also not a massive, violent affair, based more on a willingness to lie to his superiors than anything else (to cover up direct involvement in his own aasimar son's role as a weapons dealer to the tanar'ri and baatezu).
Deacon Liadon 12-23-07, 05:31 PM	"Didn't so much fall, as saunter vaguely downwards" - Good Omens