Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tiamat2 03-21-07, 12:44 PM	I recently read through the second Fiendish Codex on Devils/Baatezu and am left with several questions that I am sure are simply things that have been changed between editions without me realizing it. 1. Who is Zariel? The former leader of the first level is listed as Zariel, but I have never even heard of her. Is there information on her available anywhere? I don't think she was even in the Book of Vile Darkness. 2. Asmodeus' True Form I thought that I once read somewhere that Asmodeus' true form was something along the lines of a giant slug or creature located in the pit where he had fallen from the heavens and that the image of him as a devilish humanoid was merely a projection. Am I making this up or did this appear in earlier DnD sources on Asmodeus? 3. Unique Devils The book lists numerous unique devils without giving any informaton about them. Is this information available anywhere else or is it just provided for flavor (perhaps it is culled from numerous articles, scripted adventures, and items that wouldn't be available anyway)? Thank you.
Witch 03-21-07, 01:22 PM	Regarding #2, I think that was mentioned in the 2E Guide to Hell. #3: you can find many unique devils mentioned at many sources. Early Dragon (75, 76, 91 detail the Rabble of Devilkin; I've forgotten where the dukes are found) magazines give write-ups on many dukes of hell, outcasts, as well as archdevils; many of them are also described in Dicefreaks' Gates of Hell. Wikipedia & Planewalker are also very handy, if you like more information on these beings.
Ordbyrht 03-21-07, 01:27 PM	1. Who is Zariel? The former leader of the first level is listed as Zariel, but I have never even heard of her. Is there information on her available anywhere? I don't think she was even in the Book of Vile Darkness. Zariel is the former Lord of the First, very little is known of her though a few believe her to be a fallen celestial (I don't have my books with me, so I am unsure if this statement is canon or not). Shortly after the Reckoning, Bel overthrew her. 2. Asmodeus' True Form I thought that I once read somewhere that Asmodeus' true form was something along the lines of a giant slug or creature located in the pit where he had fallen from the heavens and that the image of him as a devilish humanoid was merely a projection. Am I making this up or did this appear in earlier DnD sources on Asmodeus? This has only appeared in Guide to Hell, a 2nd Edition source. Most authors seem to see it as a mistake, as it has been retconned to hell (no pun intended). In Manual of the Planes, it was reduced to a rumor. It's been a while since I've read Tyrants of the Nine Hells, so I am unsure of its treatment in that book. 3. Unique Devils The book lists numerous unique devils without giving any informaton them. Is this information available anywhere else or is it just provided for flavor (perhaps it is culled from numerous articles, scripted adventures, and items that wouldn't be available anyway)? Most of these are indeed from several different sources. Ed Greenwood wrote an article for Dragon Magazine #75-76 which detailed a good number of the unique underlings of the Lords. As you can see, the magazine was only in the double digits when this article was written, so some of it is understandably out of date. Off the top of my head, Tiamat was still in power as the Lord of the First (I believe that this was retconned recently, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was done in FC:II. Can I get a source on this or a correction?), as were Geryon and Moloch in their respective layers of Stygia and Malbolge. I also believe the article listed Baazebul under his celestial name Triel and may have listed Mephistopheles under his pseudonym Molikroth. Faces of Evil: The Fiends also lists a few of the unique devils, but not much else is given. Guide to Hell is another source that I remember giving some flavor to these guys. Don't quote me on that though, I have very recently gotten this book and have only glancingly looked over it.
Witch 03-21-07, 01:30 PM	Most of these are indeed from several different sources. Ed Greenwood wrote an article for Dragon Magazine #75-76 which detailed a good number of the unique underlings of the Lords. As you can see, the magazine was only in the double digits when this article was written, so some of it is understandably out of date. Much of it is out of date, but it's quite inspiring :) Off the top of my head, Tiamat was still in power as the Lord of the First (I believe that this was retconned recently, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was done in FC:II. Can I get a source on this or a correction? She was indeed - and yes, it's been retconned. Far earlier than FCII, too, even prior to the BoVD. If my mind serves me, I think this was done in the transition from 1E to 2E. as were Geryon and Moloch in their respective layers of Stygia and Malbolge. They weren't retconned, though, they were simply overthrown. Tiamat is considered never to have been lord - Geryon & Moloch are considered to have been lord in the past.
Ordbyrht 03-21-07, 01:41 PM	They weren't retconned, though, they were simply overthrown. Tiamat is considered never to have been lord - Geryon & Moloch are considered to have been lord in the past. I meant retconned as in "never was lord", not "former lord". I was only asking that about Tiamat, I know that Geryon and Moloch were only overthrown. Sorry about that, I should have made that clearer. She was indeed - and yes, it's been retconned. Far earlier than FCII, too, even prior to the BoVD. If my mind serves me, I think this was done in the transition from 1E to 2E. My brain must be getting foggy in its ripe old age of twenty, I could've sworn that was done recently. Oh well, thanks for the correction. Much of it is out of date, but it's quite inspiring Agreed, it's one of my favorite articles in Dragon history.
Tiamat2 03-21-07, 01:43 PM	There's no mention of Asmodeus' "true" form in FC II so I assume that this idea has been dropped. I'd love to know more about Zariel (rough idea of appearance, etc.), but I guess that kind of information was never presented. Several of the unique devils intrigued me because of their names, especially Lilith (consort of the Lord of the Flies) since her name is rooted heavily in the occult. The information on wiki strikes me as inaccurate (especially since its contradictory), but I guess that's my best bet to give some of these devils backstories. Thanks for the replies.
TheOinodaemon 03-21-07, 01:43 PM	I think, though I don't have the books on me, that Zariel is statted out in the first Monster Manual. Bel is statted out in the Second (as her chief underling and lord of her Pit fiend legions).
Tiamat2 03-21-07, 03:23 PM	I think, though I don't have the bopoks on me, that Zariel is statted out in the first Monster Manual. Bel is statted out in the Second (as her chief underling and lord of her Pit fiend legions). I don't think so. After a little research, it seems Zariel was a 2e creation to replace Tiamat as Lord of the First.
Surgo 03-21-07, 04:24 PM	Rip wrote two very good stories on the origins of Zariel on this board, and fairly recently too. Anyone have the links?
Singer_of_the_Song 03-21-07, 04:50 PM	Regarding #2, I think that was mentioned in the 2E Guide to Hell. #3: you can find many unique devils mentioned at many sources. Early Dragon (75, 76, 91 detail the Rabble of Devilkin; I've forgotten where the dukes are found) magazines give write-ups on many dukes of hell, outcasts, as well as archdevils; many of them are also described in Dicefreaks' Gates of Hell. Wikipedia & Planewalker are also very handy, if you like more information on these beings. How would one get their hands on these issues? PDF?
Witch 03-21-07, 04:58 PM	http://paizo.com/store/paizo/dragon/issues/1983 :)
Romtos 03-21-07, 06:14 PM	There's no mention of Asmodeus' "true" form in FC II so I assume that this idea has been dropped. Read it again. There is, actually. Entry of Nessus, one of the rifts. It says every drip of blood or something like that spawns an advanced devil or devil with maximum HP. I've got to look that up. I guess it's not dropped, on the contrary: it's made from rumor to fact.
Tiamat2 03-21-07, 06:20 PM	Read it again. There is, actually. Entry of Nessus, one of the rifts. It says every drip of blood or something like that spawns an advanced devil or devil with maximum HP. I've got to look that up. I guess it's not dropped, on the contrary: it's made from rumor to fact. That isn't quite the same though as him being a giant slug or similar creature (I can't remember the exact reference in Manual of the Planes) and his humanoid appearance being a mere projection/facade.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-21-07, 07:00 PM	I guess it's not dropped, on the contrary: it's made from rumor to fact. Not really. The 2e 'Guide to Hell' attempt to insert a spin on Zoarastrianism and a monolithic good/evil duality into D&D has been retconned into oblivion. The only surviving piece of that mythology is the notion that Asmodeus is a fallen/corrupted LN being, and there's more Milton present in the current ideas in FC:II than Zarathustra. The Asmo as Ahriman idea is gone, so is the Jazirian as his dualistic opposite idea, and the idea of him having had any sort of role in forming the multiverse and feeding on the souls of athiests is likewise gone. Basically all of the extreme ideas from GtH that never made sense within the cosmology have been dumped.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-21-07, 07:05 PM	I think, though I don't have the bopoks on me, that Zariel is statted out in the first Monster Manual. Bel is statted out in the Second (as her chief underling and lord of her Pit fiend legions). Nope. Zariel doesn't appear till 2e when she was described as Bel's predecessor and mentioned several times in that capacity, though never given a name till late 2e. And while Bel is mentioned, it's in name only in a laundry list of Baatorian nobility who aren't statted or described. You might be thinking of Bael, a Duke of Hell who is statted and given a thin bit of detail, but he's seperate and distinct from Bel.
Tiamat2 03-21-07, 07:23 PM	Nope. Zariel doesn't appear till 2e when she was described as Bel's predecessor and mentioned several times in that capacity, though never given a name till late 2e. And while Bel is mentioned, it's in name only in a laundry list of Baatorian nobility who aren't statted or described. You might be thinking of Bael, a Duke of Hell who is statted and given a thin bit of detail, but he's seperate and distinct from Bel. Is Zariel really a fallen celestial as described in some places or just another unique devil? Or perhaps this is never known officially.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-21-07, 07:31 PM	Is Zariel really a fallen celestial as described in some places or just another unique devil? Or perhaps this is never known officially. There's no suggestion in the published material that she was a fallen celestial. As far as I know it's an idea that popped up in someone's campaign or on a messageboard, but it's not in any of the actual sourcebooks.
ripvanwormer 03-21-07, 07:31 PM	Is Zariel really a fallen celestial as described in some places or just another unique devil? Or perhaps this is never known officially. Before the Reckoning, there were two major factions in Baator; one (Mephistopheles, Geryon, Mammon, and Dispater) was united in hatred of fallen celestials under the belief that they represented an impure form of lawful evil. Zariel belonged to the pro-fallen celestial faction, as did Belial, Moloch, and Baalzebul. There's no indication in any official book that any of them other than Baalzebul (who was a fallen archon) were actually fallen celestials themselves - we only know that they weren't violently opposed to them as their counterparts were.
The Serge7 03-21-07, 07:50 PM	In The Gates of Hell, Dicefreaks established the conflict between Mephistopheles and his gang of Devils True and Beelzebul and his fellow Fallen [angels]. I'm not sure if others did the same or not.
BOZ 03-22-07, 03:35 PM	3. Unique Devils The book lists numerous unique devils without giving any informaton about them. Is this information available anywhere else or is it just provided for flavor (perhaps it is culled from numerous articles, scripted adventures, and items that wouldn't be available anyway)? we're working on (very slowly) converting those, over on ENworld's forums. :)
Praedoran 03-23-07, 12:44 PM	I believe Asmodeus's truest form to be that of the most beautiful of Celestials to have ever existed. The slug rumor probably perpetuated itself from the parallels many make between him and Lucifer. And another name for Lucy is the Lord of Flies, who, according to FCII, has the form of a Slug. Either way, it's all mythology. Whether it's true or not, is up to the DM.
DrMorganes 03-23-07, 12:54 PM	I believe Asmodeus's truest form to be that of the most beautiful of Celestials to have ever existed. The slug rumor probably perpetuated itself from the parallels many make between him and Lucifer. And another name for Lucy is the Lord of Flies, who, according to FCII, has the form of a Slug. Either way, it's all mythology. Whether it's true or not, is up to the DM. Not quite. You're thinking of Baalzebul, who was Lord of Flies and Lies waaaaay back in the AD&D Monster Manual. The illustration then was of a man with a fang-filled mouth and huge compound eyes. As of FCII, he's been transformed into this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/101507.jpg). As far as I know, "Lucifer" has never been mentioned in D&D cosmology.
Praedoran 03-23-07, 01:09 PM	Aye, but if I'm not mistaken, according to the Lore presented in the beginning of the book, Asmodeus was a beautiful celestial. Baalzebub and several others were also pretty because they were part of the followers that went with him. And yes, there is no direct mention of Luce in D&D, it stays away from that. However, Dante's depiction of Hell, Satan's many names throughout history, Faustian contracts, etc. Most of the Fiendish Codex II is inspired by common Christian beliefs, so that we can "relate" to it better I suppose.
ripvanwormer 03-23-07, 01:36 PM	Aye, but if I'm not mistaken, according to the Lore presented in the beginning of the book, Asmodeus was a beautiful celestial. Keep in mind that, according to that book, this was before good or evil existed. As such, Asmodeus was probably originally Lawful Neutral before his corruption into evil, and thus not a true "angel" in the way we understand the term today. Also note that he stopped being "beautiful" well before his final descent. Baalzebub and several others were also pretty because they were part of the followers that went with him. Baalzebul is a former archon, and didn't fall until much later. The lords who came to Baator with Asmodeus were said to be Dispater and Mephistopheles.
Singer_of_the_Song 03-23-07, 01:36 PM	http://paizo.com/store/paizo/dragon/issues/1983 :) Hmmm...it says they are unavailable. Will that change in the forseeable future?
ripvanwormer 03-23-07, 01:38 PM	Hmmm...it says they are unavailable. Will that change in the forseeable future? No.
Praedoran 03-23-07, 01:49 PM	Keep in mind that, according to that book, this was before good or evil existed. As such, Asmodeus was probably originally Lawful Neutral before his corruption into evil, and thus not a true "angel" in the way we understand the term today. Very good point, however I believe that Good and Evil did exist, they just weren't defined yet. They were instead synonymous with Law and Chaos. There were Gods with emotions and anything with emotions has an idea of what is right and wrong. The basis was a Hive Mentality (Follow the Law and everything proceeds smoothly and everyone is happy, Follow Chaos and you screw things up and thusly, hurt people). Then Asmodeus made them rethink this concept (He's following the rules... but he's hurting people). I do agree on the point that Asmodeus was perhaps something else though. There may not have been "molds" to make races in the time of his creation and thus, everything was original and unique.
ripvanwormer 03-23-07, 02:16 PM	Very good point, however I believe that Good and Evil did exist, they just weren't defined yet. I think they existed and were defined, but not by the forces of Law. Law, in those very early days, had not yet interacted with Good or Evil to any real extent and did not understand those concepts. Asmodeus was dispatched by the forces of pure Law, who acted with a great deal of naivety. It's clear from other sources, however (for example, the Fiendish Codex I) that beings of pure evil, unaffiliated with Law or Chaos, existed at the time. They were instead synonymous with Law and Chaos. That's just how the beings of Law saw the multiverse - as a place where Law was synonymous with good and Chaos with bad. However, that was just their subjective impression, and Asmodeus' actions in the name of Law proved that their impression was incorrect. Their ideas of what was good or bad had nothing to do with the D&D alignments, only their personal preferences. There were Gods with emotions and anything with emotions has an idea of what is right and wrong. I don't agree with any of those assumptions. While the beings who dispatched Asmodeus are referred to as gods in the myth, it's apparent that the myth is a very late retelling of the actual events (for example, St. Cuthbert is referred to, even though St. Cuthbert was a mortal only centuries ago). I think that because the myth is really about the interaction of alignments, the actual dramatis personae were the progenitors of Law. I wouldn't assume they had emotions, and I definitely don't see any correlation between emotions and morality.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-23-07, 02:27 PM	Very good point, however I believe that Good and Evil did exist, they just weren't defined yet. Oh, Good and Evil certainly existed, but the primordial planes of Good and Evil had at that point not made their influence known in such a major way into the planes of LN and CN, or more likely the earliest LN beings simply had yet to grasp their meaning. Asmodeus's corruption by the spreading influence of the primordial Waste might have been a watershed event in the evolution of Law, and his shift to LE probably drove a number of his fellows to LG as they understood, and rejected, his change with a "corruption" of their own away from their roots. The earliest actions of LN, CN, NE, NG, and N initially happened in something of a vacuum, and their interaction, understanding of, and conflict with one another was often slow to develop till their planes began to mingle across an expanding Great Wheel. By the time Asmodeus was corrupted away from LN, the lower planes had already expanded out from the initial Gray Waste, Carceri had formed very early on, (we don't know the exact time of Gehenna's formation) and the Abyss and Baator had been formed slightly later (but still before Asmo fell into Baator). History among the fiends was already rich and deep before Asmo fell to evil, but FC:II doesn't concern itself with events outside the planes of Law.
Andyr 03-24-07, 03:13 PM	I like the idea that, being an ancient entity possibly predating mortal life, Asmodeus does not have a true form. If there's something down the bottom of the Pit of Nessus, I'd have it as something where time and space break down--like the singularity of a black hole--and there is not matter, but only the essence of Law and Evil. The overload of belief at this focal point of Law and Evil in the outer planes would mean that it is incomprehensible to the mortal mind. When Asmodeus appears, I'd envisage him looking like a devlish version of whoever is observing him; like seeing yourself in a mirror distorted by Law and Evil, as though all the potential Law and Evil within you were manifest. So the illustrations in BoVD and FCII might be what one particular human who is (un)lucky enough to be visited by Asmodeus might see.
The Serge7 03-24-07, 05:52 PM	I like the idea that, being an ancient entity possibly predating mortal life, Asmodeus does not have a true form. If there's something down the bottom of the Pit of Nessus, I'd have it as something where time and space break down--like the singularity of a black hole--and there is not matter, but only the essence of Law and Evil. The overload of belief at this focal point of Law and Evil in the outer planes would mean that it is incomprehensible to the mortal mind. When Asmodeus appears, I'd envisage him looking like a devlish version of whoever is observing him; like seeing yourself in a mirror distorted by Law and Evil, as though all the potential Law and Evil within you were manifest. So the illustrations in BoVD and FCII might be what one particular human who is (un)lucky enough to be visited by Asmodeus might see. Hmmmm.... This is pretty cool.
Bob the Efreet 03-25-07, 02:04 AM	When Asmodeus appears, I'd envisage him looking like a devlish version of whoever is observing him; like seeing yourself in a mirror distorted by Law and Evil, as though all the potential Law and Evil within you were manifest. So the illustrations in BoVD and FCII might be what one particular human who is (un)lucky enough to be visited by Asmodeus might see. The person in question is, of course, Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Singer_of_the_Song 03-25-07, 02:17 AM	The person in question is, of course, Bram Stoker's Dracula. Bram Stoker FTW.
Tiamat2 03-25-07, 10:38 PM	I also preferred the idea that there was more to Asmodeus than met the eye, but I guess Wizards decided it was better to conventionalize the fiends the way everything else has been kind of dumbed down and "rationalized."
Old Sparky 03-30-07, 01:07 PM	I just got this book yesterday, so forgive me for being a Johnny-come-lately to this topic. Asmodeus appears as whatever serves his own dark purposes best. What he may or may not actually be, his "true form" will always be speculation. Even the official "truth" of his origins is intentionally blurred. Just before the story of Asmodeus's fall and the pact primeval, it clearly states that the story is true even if it never happened. That means it does not retcon a single thing... not how Asmodeus came to be the Lord of Hell, nor what is his true form or purpose, and certainly not what his true form might be (and I was always under the impression that his true form was allegedly that of an enormous serpent). All FC2 does is establish what the current accepted myth is. =================================== Anyhow, with that out of the way, I do have some questions of my own specifically concerning the various unique devils (some which can be found in 3.0 and 3.5e versions in certain unofficial sources). First, is there any distinction between the terms "unique devil" and "dukes" other than political affiliation. There are a number of outcast dukes currently dwelling on the first level of Hell. In spite of not being attached to the court of any archdevil, they indicate such beings as quite powerful. Second, and related to the previous question, does being a duke (officially attached to one of the Lords of the Nine) grant a fiend any extra power or significance beyond status? FC2 lists the devilish heirarchy from least devil to greater devil and ignores the unique devils, dukes, and archdukes. The way I see it, the progression goes: Least devils Lesser devils Greater devils Unique devils Dukes Archdukes (and a nod to Asmodeus as being above them all) Now I'm just speculating here, so please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong or feel free to make your own speculations... But all devils above Greater status are essentially just varying degrees of the same caste: Unique devils. At the top of the heap, the archdukes are the most powerful because they actually reap the benefits of their minions' soul collection activities. Below them, the Dukes are unique devils who serve in an archduke's court and get to take part in and take a fraction of the soul collection activies (of their own underlings, or perhaps given an agreed upon share directly from the archduke since some Duke's responsibilities may not directly be concerned with corrupting mortals). Then there are just the plain old unique devils... they're above the lower heirarchy, but without having attached themselves to an archduke's court (or perhaps having been cast out from such status), they don't have the luxury of getting a share of a divine energy harvested from the big collection effort... any divine energy they have is either a holdover from a previous position and/or the result of their own efforts (most likely as a result of bargaining souls that haven't been marked by a specific archduke or underlings). So what happens to an archduke (like Geryon or Moloch) who is deposed by Asmodeus? Would they just be cut off from renewing power through soul collection, or would they be stripped of their power outright? Doesn't Bel feed off of the now-deposed and imprisoned Zariel? This seems to imply she might still possess the power she had as an archduke but is now losing it one meal for Bel at a time. Thoughts? Speaking of Zariel, last question: Under Bel's entry in FC2, in the lore section --Knowledge (religion) check DC 20-- it states that the cult of Zariel is scattered and crumbling. As there hasn't been much detail written about Zariel in the past, does anyone know what kind of cults Zariel backed? Was she the patron of anything specific as the other lords seem to be?
Tiamat2 03-30-07, 02:27 PM	Bel wasn't really ever a unique devil, right? He could be feeding off of Zariel's form simply because her unique form is more powerful than his more generic one. I'm not sure its necessary to imagine Zariel retaining some of her "divinity" in order for her to have some value to Bel, though your idea makes more sense. I've been trying to scare up all the official information on Zariel that I can, but I've failed pretty miserably. There is essentially nothing out there on her, besides vague references. The most information on her, in fact, is the material in FC II.
ripvanwormer 03-30-07, 02:49 PM	Bel is a unique devil now; he takes the form of a square-jawed, red-skinned human warrior, at least in some of his aspects.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-30-07, 06:19 PM	2. Asmodeus' True Form I thought that I once read somewhere that Asmodeus' true form was something along the lines of a giant slug or creature located in the pit where he had fallen from the heavens and that the image of him as a devilish humanoid was merely a projection. Am I making this up or did this appear in earlier DnD sources on Asmodeus? . The form is actually one of the first two great serpents the other is Jazirian and their battle according to legend is what formed the planes. Witch and some of the others are correct about the blood dripping issue and the blood according to the 2e Guide to Hell were maxed out Pit Fiends and Asmodias's original name had undergone a change after his fall. I have this older work if you all need quotes but the massive form isn't so much a slug as a pandimensional worm/serpent creature. There are Millions to Billions of Devils in massive cities on Nessus. The Pit of Nessus is the location according to that work. So it is a pretty safe bet to remain the story. To my knowledge even in 1e. Tiamat was the Guardian of the Gate between the 1st and 2nd layers much more than a ruler of the 1st, I could go and check the manuals if someone wishes. I have a complete collection all the way back to 1st edition so it may take some time but it really isn't a hassle or anything.(only a few ruined things from 2e. that I need to replace.)
Shemeska the Marauder 03-30-07, 06:28 PM	The form is actually one of the first two great serpents the other is Jazirian and their battle according to legend is what formed the planes. ... So it is a pretty safe bet to remain the story. Ick. No. :nonexistantbarfemoticon Though the legend in 'Guide to Hell' never meshed well with the other histories of the early lower planes, and some other topics. Virtually all of the Ahriman=Asmodeus and Jazirian=his opposite appears nowhere else and has been retconned in subsequent material. A few tidbits of the myth were taken and reworked in FC:II, but FC:II's myths only contain the idea of Asmo having been a fallen creature of Law, but none of the other, more bizarre notions.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-30-07, 09:39 PM	Ick. No. :nonexistantbarfemoticon Though the legend in 'Guide to Hell' never meshed well with the other histories of the early lower planes, and some other topics. Virtually all of the Ahriman=Asmodeus and Jazirian=his opposite appears nowhere else and has been retconned in subsequent material. A few tidbits of the myth were taken and reworked in FC:II, but FC:II's myths only contain the idea of Asmo having been a fallen creature of Law, but none of the other, more bizarre notions. OK, Shemeska. Is there many reworks of this nature which we should look forward to on a continuing basis. Just curious because a few reworks are cool but after awhile consumers start to feel differently about the purpose of said reworks. Come on now. You know that this is a fair point and we have seen this stuff many times and it is beyond old. In fact it is a major reason for titles not being bought or that bad taste in the back of the consumers throats when they get a purchase that either diminishes or mostly revamps older material. It does need to be talked about so the products can be first rate, no? I am not looking for an aurgument just some honest discussion. As a consumer I am quite satisfied with most of the materials recnently with only a few minor quirks. The FCI & FCII seem pretty well done to me. Allot is left unsaid so others can read between the lines and allows for other adventure/product or supplement material which is fine by me if it adds well. I kinda liked the thing you are protesting just because it reminded me of a method of H.P. Lovecraft in regards to antiquity and things beyond comprehension and origins all messed together. Sometimes when origins are beyond reconning with only small amounts of data it is moving....yet formiddable in a non-mathematical manner. But on the negetive side some of the names being used have huge amounts of baggage and in Fantasy RPGs the kind of baggage I am referring to is bad, as you say ick. So I do understand to the decision for the change.
Gray Richardson 03-30-07, 10:38 PM	Think of these origin tales as myths. Truth is not important so much as what people believe on the outer planes. It is certain that many people believe and tell the tale that Asmodeus and Jazirian were once the Axis of Law and have since split into the two serpents. That belief makes it true to an extent. The outer planes can embody multiple, contradictory truths. ;) Nothing in FCII directly contradicts or disavows the 2 serpents myth, and actually seems to obliquely support the myth in certain respects. Personally, I like very much the "Serpents of Law" origin myth for Asmodeus and Jazirian. They define the 4 corners of the Great Wheel together with Merrshaulk (the CE serpent) and an unknown CG serpent (perhaps the Rainbow Serpent?) who is either long lost, or gone off to explore distant corners of the multiverse and beyond, or, having shed his/her skin is still around in a form that is unrecognizable from his/her serpentine origins (Queen Morwel perhaps?).
Kojiro James 03-30-07, 11:01 PM	Not quite. You're thinking of Baalzebul, who was Lord of Flies and Lies waaaaay back in the AD&D Monster Manual. The illustration then was of a man with a fang-filled mouth and huge compound eyes. As of FCII, he's been transformed into this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/101507.jpg). As far as I know, "Lucifer" has never been mentioned in D&D cosmology. Baalzebul has been a slug since a lot earlier than FCII.
BOZ 03-31-07, 01:05 AM	indeed. Planescape established "Triel the Slug-Archduke", and Guide to Hell established that Triel and Baalzebul were one in the same.
Old Sparky 03-31-07, 01:14 PM	Okay, so now I've got another question about the whole hellish damnation aspect of FC2. It says that a person is damned when their alignment becomes Lawful Evil. That's all well and good, but it seems to me that such a system is far too lenient. All a fella has to do is bump his alignment over to neutral evil to be redeemed/not "damned." What's up with that? Redemption should include moving away from evil, not just an ethical shift in how you follow evil's tenets. :p
General_Ridley 03-31-07, 01:19 PM	At that point, you go to one of the NE planes and the 'Loths have you now. Not exactly much better. If you've lost your soul to a devil though, it doesn't matter if you bump all the way to Chaotic Good. You go to the Hells.
Old Sparky 03-31-07, 01:19 PM	Though the legend in 'Guide to Hell' never meshed well with the other histories of the early lower planes, and some other topics. Virtually all of the Ahriman=Asmodeus and Jazirian=his opposite appears nowhere else and has been retconned in subsequent material. Heh... just a few posts before your's, Shemmy, I explained why no retcon has actually taken place. Its a shift in beliefs, an acceptance of a new creation myth idea... not an official replacement for what never should have been considered historical canon anyway. Truth is what you make of it, but FC2 points out that the truth doesn't necessarily have to be true. Just because Guide To Hell's myth isn't really referenced anymore (or ever outside that single book that I know of) does not mean that it has been contradicted or countered in any way.
Old Sparky 03-31-07, 01:23 PM	If you've lost your soul to a devil though, it doesn't matter if you bump all the way to Chaotic Good. You go to the Hells. True, but there is room for arbitration. Its not a promising possibility, but if you have a good lawyer...
Tiamat2 03-31-07, 01:30 PM	True, but there is room for arbitration. Its not a promising possibility, but if you have a good lawyer... This lost your soul to devils because you've become LE is one of the most troubling and, in some ways, ridiculous aspects of FC II. It certainly doesn't mesh with the FR (where most souls are pledged to deities and the word is more deity-centered and less alignment centered) and it seems to completely eliminate the point of having evil gods in the core setting as well. As I play exclusively in the FR setting, I ignored most of it, but it took up a disturbing amount of space.
Bob the Efreet 03-31-07, 02:10 PM	This lost your soul to devils because you've become LE is one of the most troubling and, in some ways, ridiculous aspects of FC II. If you're LE (truly and solidly so, not LE(N) or L(N)E), your soul goes to Baator. Unless you worshiped a deity that doesn't live on Baator. It's really no different than your soul resting any other plane when you die.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-31-07, 02:10 PM	This lost your soul to devils because you've become LE is one of the most troubling and, in some ways, ridiculous aspects of FC II. If you're claimed by a patron deity, your alignment doesn't matter. Regardless of alignment a petitioner will still go to the divine domain of a deific patron. The fiends may occasionally poach such souls, but they don't have any automatic claim to them (nor do gods mind you, it's just how astral conduits will direct such souls and probably has more to do with the petitioner than anything else).
Old Sparky 03-31-07, 02:32 PM	Yeah, in FR, I think their rules supercede the damnation stuff in FC2. However, they can still finagle some souls that are awaiting the evil short bus to their god's domain while on the Fugue plane.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-31-07, 02:46 PM	Yeah, in FR, I think their rules supercede the damnation stuff in FC2. Not just FR. Anywhere in the multiverse, if you have a patron deity, your soul will preferentially migrate to their deific domain rather than the plane of your alignment. Baator only has claim to LE (and not LN(E) or (L)NE) souls that aren't claimed already by a specific patron deity, and those who sold their souls (knowingly or not) to Baator prior to death.
BOZ 03-31-07, 04:48 PM	or better yet, mortals who had pledged themselves to a devil. :)
Shemeska the Marauder 03-31-07, 05:30 PM	or better yet, mortals who had pledged themselves to a devil. :) Indeed. Added that to my earlier post. :)
Sachiel 04-01-07, 10:43 AM	A few years ago, I ran a Planescape game where the player characters were going to venture heavilly in the lower planes and deal with the blood war in order to save the soul of their paladin. Eventually they would learn that Zariel held the secret to a puzzling cube in Acheron that used to be a part of Avernus, and they would be required to make a deal with her somehow. That would have been so fun, it's too bad they decided to concentrate on an illithid citadel in the negative energy plane instead. This campaign was set several years after the one where they had to destroy the unique tanar'ri Fos'Natsu, and in order to do so, had to track down the one who imprisoned it...Moloch, and convince him to make a new item to bind Fos'Natsu so they could take it to the Abyss, release it, and permanently kill it. Those were the days...I miss the lower planes. *grumbles about the new gaming group who doesn't like planar adventures*
Drewskie 04-03-07, 12:16 AM	As far as I know, "Lucifer" has never been mentioned in D&D cosmology. If I remember correctly, Lucifer is detailed, and even given stats, in the same Dragon article in #75-76 by Ed Greenwood. I think there was a third "hells" article around issue #90 or so as well... been a few years since I've looked at those old magazines.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-03-07, 01:13 AM	If I remember correctly, Lucifer is detailed, and even given stats, in the same Dragon article in #75-76 by Ed Greenwood. I think there was a third "hells" article around issue #90 or so as well... been a few years since I've looked at those old magazines. Nope, Lucifer only appeared in the non-canonical "Politics of Hell" article in Dragon #28. Beherit appears in one of the Greenwood articles (Dragon #91 I believe), and Greenwood decades later gives him the alias Lucifer in 'Elminster in Hell', but Beherit doesn't have a history that resembles the mythological Lucifer. Beherit was the Lord of the 7th prior to Baalzebul, and is currently deader than dead can be. I don't believe that Beherit has been described as using that alias in any other source however.
Ordbyrht 04-03-07, 01:14 AM	If I remember correctly, Lucifer is detailed, and even given stats, in the same Dragon article in #75-76 by Ed Greenwood. I think there was a third "hells" article around issue #90 or so as well... been a few years since I've looked at those old magazines. I just checked both Dragon #75-76, there's no mention of Lucifer. I have a sneaking suspicion that he's found in a very early article, "Politics of Hell" in Dragon #28, if I'm not mistaken. However, I've never been able to get my grubby little mitts on that issue.
Drewskie 04-03-07, 02:18 PM	Ahh ok, I had looked at that article via the dragon magazine cd rom archive a few years ago, so that's where I remember seeing it. Issue #28 would have been a very earlier source, sometime in the late 70's probably. Also, I remember the politics of hell article as being one of the few(the only?) that they didn't scan properly, so I was irked at not being able to read it in full.
ripvanwormer 04-03-07, 08:04 PM	The article on the CD-ROM seems perfectly legible to me, although very dark on the first page.