Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wickerbull 04-16-06, 01:54 PM	Hey All, Can anyone tell me if Dragon Issue #341 has stats for Baphomet? Thanks in advance.
Dragon Snack 04-16-06, 02:35 PM	They are on pages 21-23. There are also stats for an Aspect of Baphomet on page 23...
Wickerbull 04-16-06, 02:50 PM	Alright! Finally. Thanks man.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-17-06, 04:08 AM	Alright! Finally. Thanks man. Although admittedly the stats are created in line with the standard set by the BoVD (which intentionally presented watered down archfiends of a CR20-30'ish range so as to make them viable monsters for PCs of reasonable levels to fight. When taken into larger context, that power level conflicts with their histories in terms of standing up deities, their thematic position on the planes, etc.) I get around this unfortunate stance in 3e by simply treating the presented stats as those of avatars, not the actual archfiend itself. It makes more contextual sense that way, though if you're just treating them as big 'boss' monsters, the as presented stats work fine for that too, but it's not my preferred stance for a variety of reasons. *cough* That said, James Jacobs did a -very- good job with the article. It's regrettable that he had to play to the standard that was set previously, but the writing itself is spot on, and the inclusion of Pale Night was icing on the cake (she's Baphomet's consort, or the other way, he's her consort really).
Wickerbull 04-17-06, 02:18 PM	Although admittedly the stats are created in line with the standard set by the BoVD (which intentionally presented watered down archfiends of a CR20-30'ish range so as to make them viable monsters for PCs of reasonable levels to fight. When taken into larger context, that power level conflicts with their histories in terms of standing up deities, their thematic position on the planes, etc.) I can see where you're coming from. Unfortunately I don't know too much of the histories of any archfiends or similar characters because I started with 3.0 and never bothered to learn. I look at it from a CR point of view. If an archfiend wants to be able to take on a deity it should have a CR at least equal to the CR of the deity it wants to take out. For my campaign I like there to be a differentiation between archfiends (and celestial paragons) and real deities. I think I had decided to make all archfiends and celestial paragons into quasi-deities (that may already be the norm). I'll probably upgrade Baphomet to lesser deity status since (in my campaign at least) he created the minotaurs. All in all I'm just glad to see stats. This will help bring my current (over-long running) campaign to a close.
Prak, the Mad 04-17-06, 09:06 PM	yeah, the article was nice, hell, it's the reason I bought the magazine, I just... don't like the way they decided to work him in in earlier editions that they must have felt obligated to stick to. I dislike the fact that he was made the patron of minotaurs, especially since he's a goat, not a bull, also because there's a perfectly good race of goatfolk(neutral even, thus they could, selectively, worship him). I... just... am a purist... and would rather not get this thread deleted by discussing why I'm not big on the portrayal of baphomet in d&d...
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-17-06, 10:20 PM	I dislike the fact that he was made the patron of minotaurs, especially since he's a goat, not a bull, also because there's a perfectly good race of goatfolk(neutral even, thus they could, selectively, worship him). The goatfolk were invented for the MMIII. Baphomet was in what, the 1e MM? He predates them by around 30 years.
Prak, the Mad 04-17-06, 10:40 PM	yeah, but was there anything saying the article could deviate alittle from the established game info in light of the race being created? like I said, I'm a purist, and baphomet holds a special place in me, and my philosophy, so... I'm just disappointed... still very cool, and they do rather well translating him by making him a demon prince of beasts
Wickerbull 04-18-06, 12:50 AM	like I said, I'm a purist, and baphomet holds a special place in me, and my philosophy, so... I'm just disappointed... In terms of Baphomet's Earth importance I can see where you would be in disagreement. The Baphomet was a goat-thing, not a bull-thing. But, for D&D, things change from the way they are usually represented in real life. Take your pick: -Unicorns shouldn't be Large. They should be Medium size at most. Their small size is symbolic of the humility of the Incarnation of Christ. -Trolls should probably turn to stone during the day. Everyone's heard that, right? -Lycanthropes should have to be burned after they are killed so that they don't turn into vampires. Maybe that's more obscure. -Hippogriffs are described in the MM without any reference to griffins, but, hippogriffs were supposed to be a cross between a griffin and a horse (I think). Since griffins are described in the MM as preffering to eat horse meat that kind of eliminates that possibility. I guess you could consider me a purist about some of the above things. But, since they're all fantasy they can be manipulated however any particular person wants to manipulate them. In other cases it's peoples' different perceptions of real-life things that cause them to want to mainpulate those things in order to be properly used in their fantasy game.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-18-06, 02:18 AM	like I said, I'm a purist, and baphomet holds a special place in me, and my philosophy, so... I'm just disappointed... still very cool, and they do rather well translating him by making him a demon prince of beasts Well a purist stance on DnD's Baphomet is pretty happy with the Dragon article since it stays true to the Abyssal Lord in question across the editions. As far as Baphomet in real life, the original Baphomet was a silver gilded skull or silver human head, if the inquisitors of the French crown are to be believed. The goat headed 'baphomet' doesn't appear till later historically, so technically from a purist stance, that version has less standing ;)
Prak, the Mad 04-18-06, 02:55 AM	well, that's a good point Shemeska.... hadn't heard about that...but, I do recall hearing that Baphomet was a name for a Templar representation of Satan, it may be older than that though... so I'm just going to rephrase myself for safety and say, I learned something a little bit different about Baphomet, and so my old knowledge takes precedence in my mind.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-18-06, 03:28 AM	well, that's a good point Shemeska.... hadn't heard about that...but, I do recall hearing that Baphomet was a name for a Templar representation of Satan, it may be older than that though... so I'm just going to rephrase myself for safety and say, I learned something a little bit different about Baphomet, and so my old knowledge takes precedence in my mind. 'Baphomet' first appears in the claims of the inquisitors of the French crown under Philip IV during the arrest and subsequent torture of members of the Knights Templar. Among other heretical acts they confessed to under prolonged torture were the worship of idols, including a bearded human head, a silver gilded skull, and an idol called 'Baphomet'. [It's worth noting that the Holy See retroactively gave absolution to the members of the order some time later, though I forget which Pope did so (Clement V perhaps), apparently feeling that the dissolution of the Templars was politically motivated and that the claims of the crown during their trial were fabrications rather than evidence of any actual heresy.] Baphomet as a goat headed figure doesn't appear till the 1854 publication of a book by Elpihas Levi in which he gave an illustration of the 'Baphomet of Mendes' which most consider to be a mingling of the appearance of the devil from the Tarot of Marseille and of a ram headed egyptian deity worshipped in (described by Herodotus) the city of Mendes. Levi's re-interpretation isn't all that keen to the original Templar legends nor to the Egyptian material he snagged (it was ram headed, his depiction is goat headed, among other things). DnD for the most part deviates from Levi's version just as much as Levi deviates from the original Templar legends, really to the extent that aside from inspiration and name, the Abyssal Lord is really his own thing and not dependant on the earlier two versions. A lot of the 1e demon lords were the same way: they had the name of a historical fiend, but typically had no connection or resemblance beyond potentially some superficial aspect. The DnD archfiends have, since that period (1e was pretty shallow on flavor text and lore for them), substantially grown in the depth of the lore describing them though.
Prak, the Mad 04-18-06, 01:54 PM	according to this (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/baphomet.html), baphomet of the templars was depicted as a goat headed demon with the body combining aspects of bull, dog, and ass(donkey), the body is thought to have represented "the burden of matter from which arose the repentance for sin. The human hands formed a sign of esotericism to impress mystery upon the initiates. First they represented the sanctity of labor; and by pointing two lunar crescents, the upper being white and the lower black, they also represented good and evil, mercy and justice. The lower part of the goat's body was veiled but expressed the mysteries the universial generation symbolized by the caduceus or the phallus. The goat's female breasts were the only symbols of maternity, toil, and redemption." the article says in the next paragraph; "Most accounts of the idol Baphomet were from the confessions of the Knights Templar at their trials after the Inquisition." soo... apparently the article says that the hermaphroditic goat demon form of baphomet springs from templar confessions.(and admittedly that's merely how it looks in this one article.)
Shemeska the Marauder 04-18-06, 03:43 PM	soo... apparently the article says that the hermaphroditic goat demon form of baphomet springs from templar confessions.(and admittedly that's merely how it looks in this one article.) They've done some pretty iffy research there, because I'm not aware of that ever having appeared in the original trial records. They seem to be using some rather shoddy revisionist history there, so take that site with a grain of salt. The original templar accusations never got into super specific details about 'baphomet' like they seem to imply.
Wickerbull 04-18-06, 09:25 PM	I don't know too much about the Templars or Baphomet, but I did look through some places in order to get an idea of what Baphomet is about. Here's the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet) And here's the Catholic take on the Templars from New Advent (everyone's favorite Catholic Encyclopedia) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm) I enjoyed the second article. It's really very fair to both the order and the Church.