Who is the demon trapped in the Silver Flame? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Who is the demon trapped in the Silver Flame? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hammerhead
10-05-07, 08:53 PM I think maybe its Pazuzu since it says he really like to tempt lawful good people.
Alex_
10-05-07, 09:13 PM I think maybe its Pazuzu since it says he really like to tempt lawful good people.

Thanks to you I now have an image of Professor Farnsworth (the Futurama one) as a cleric of the Silver Flame, shaking his fist and yelling, "PAZUZU!"
androkguz
10-09-07, 12:40 PM Dude, I sincerely don't think that it's a non-eberron-unique demon.

And I really can't stand the idea that the most important rahaj of the eberron setting is not a rakshasa.... but rakshasas can shapechange....
Edymnion
10-09-07, 01:01 PM Thanks to you I now have an image of Professor Farnsworth (the Futurama one) as a cleric of the Silver Flame, shaking his fist and yelling, "PAZUZU!"...

:rofl:

Damn your eyes for that!
Cifer
10-09-07, 01:36 PM And I really can't stand the idea that the most important rahaj of the eberron setting is not a rakshasa.... but rakshasas can shapechange....
Actually, most of the Rahjas might not be Rakshasa at all. Rahja is just a title or position of office, like "King of the Rakshasa".
androkguz
10-09-07, 04:31 PM Actually, most of the Rahjas might not be Rakshasa at all. Rahja is just a title or position of office, like "King of the Rakshasa".

No, many of the rahajs might not be rakshasas. I know that rahaj means overlord but I just feel it's stupid to imagine that the main fiends of the plane (damnit, the main fiends of the setting) are mainly ruled by creatures that are more like the Great Wheel demons. Where's the Eberron feel?

I specially can't accept that the particular one trapped in the silver flame is Pazuzu. It can only be a megaevil rakshasa with godlike powers. The simbol of the conflict between good and evil in the plane is the battle between a couatl and a rakshasa.

If the fiend in the flame is not a rakshasa, it would be like if the ruler of Nessus was not a devil (I can accept Asmodeous putting the Hag Countess as a ruler of a layer of Baator but it would have sucked if she was given a cool one)
Cifer
10-09-07, 07:49 PM No, many of the rahajs might not be rakshasas.
Please note the usage of the word "might".

I wouldn't use the demon princes either, but rather substitute them for some homebrewn guys - preferably some without stats...
Edymnion
10-09-07, 09:02 PM Please note the usage of the word "might".

I wouldn't use the demon princes either, but rather substitute them for some homebrewn guys - preferably some without stats...Well, the idea that Keith put out that many have taken and ran with is that the bound rhajas have divine rank. Not that they are gods, but their power level is so high that the only way to sufficiently represent it in D&D stats is with divine rank. And not piddly divine rank 0 or 1, but like 5 or 6.

Stop and think about that, the bound rhajas could actually overpower several Faerun gods.

And they say there isn't any epic level material in Eberron... ;)
Hellcow
10-09-07, 10:58 PM I know that rahaj means overlord but I just feel it's stupid to imagine that the main fiends of the plane (damnit, the main fiends of the setting) are mainly ruled by creatures that are more like the Great Wheel demons.
Sure, but the fact that they aren't rakshasa doesn't make them anything like the Great Wheel demons. As Edymnion has noted, by the "Eternal Evil" article they are above any devil, demon, or rakshasa... or archdevil or demon prince, for that matter. After all, these creatures are primarily defined by shared resistances and traits, and the abilities of the rajahs are far greater than those of any rakshasa. You can choose to have one mimic the appearance of a rakshasa if you want (and shapechanging is suggested as a common trait of the rajahs) but it's still a creature of far greater power than the free fiends of the modern age.

As a random note for people familiar with "Eternal Evil", the chapter opening image of Dragons of Eberron involves a clash between a draconic champion and Katashka the Gatekeeper in the ancient war. Of course, since Kateshka can probably change shape you don't have to take it as canon - but it's a possible image to work with.

And while the Whisperer in the Flame may be the most important rajah as far as HUMANS are concerned, the dragons may challenge that assessment... something that will be addressed in Dragons of Eberron.
Hammerhead
10-10-07, 12:18 AM Do the regular demon lords and archdevils even exist in Eberron?
Hellcow
10-10-07, 12:56 AM Do the regular demon lords and archdevils even exist in Eberron?
That's up to you.
Q99
10-12-07, 10:57 AM You could make Pazuzu a winged kitty with backwards hands.

You could also make the demon Rich Burlew.
The Ubbergeek
10-12-07, 02:58 PM How about Jack Nicholson, especially as the Joker? ;)
Hammerhead
10-13-07, 12:15 AM It does say in the book that its a demon and not a rakshasa in the flame(not sure rakshasa are considered a kind of demon in Eberron but I doubt it)
Revvecor
10-13-07, 07:39 AM It does say in the book that its a demon and not a rakshasa in the flame(not sure rakshasa are considered a kind of demon in Eberron but I doubt it)

I could be wrong, but I thought that in Eberron when the term demon is used; I took it to refer to all demonic entities(demons, devils, Rakshasa, etc....) not just classical D&D demons.
Hellcow
10-13-07, 01:08 PM I could be wrong, but I thought that in Eberron when the term demon is used; I took it to refer to all demonic entities(demons, devils, Rakshasa, etc....) not just classical D&D demons.
Correct. It's a "demon" in the flame, not a "tanar'ri". Properly it should say "fiend in the flame" and the dawn of Eberron should be "The Age of Fiends". However, in both cases "demon" was used as a generic term. Essentially, most people in Eberron apparently don't have enough ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) to recognize the difference.

The fiend in the Flame is supposed to be one of the Overlords (AKA rajahs) of the first age, similar in power to Sul Khatesh in the Dragon article "Eternal Evil". You could certainly use an archdevil or demon prince instead, but if you take a look at Sul Khatesh you'll see that you're ending up with a weaker villain than if you develop an Overlord.
Hammerhead
10-13-07, 08:24 PM which issue is that
Hellcow
10-13-07, 09:49 PM Issue 337 (http://paizo.com/dragon/products/downloads/v5748btpy7ufi&source=search). Available in PDF form at the link.
Nived
10-18-07, 09:55 PM I've always had an idea that the name of the demon in the flame is something that roughly translates to "Lord of Blades"

And he's still trapped, of course. But it has rather obvious implications for what that army of warforged massing in the Mournland is for.
Alter_Boy
10-18-07, 11:02 PM If I were to port a being of inestimable evil to be the Fiend, it would be Tharzidun. True, Tharzy was bound by the gods before time began in Greyhawk, but I think the look on the faces of my grognard players would be worth it.

Plus, it's a reason to insert The Temple of Elemental Evil in Eberron.
androkguz
10-20-07, 01:55 AM Sure, but the fact that they aren't rakshasa doesn't make them anything like the Great Wheel demons. As Edymnion has noted, by the "Eternal Evil" article they are above any devil, demon, or rakshasa... or archdevil or demon prince, for that matter. After all, these creatures are primarily defined by shared resistances and traits, and the abilities of the rajahs are far greater than those of any rakshasa. You can choose to have one mimic the appearance of a rakshasa if you want (and shapechanging is suggested as a common trait of the rajahs) but it's still a creature of far greater power than the free fiends of the modern age. [/I]
Well, hellcow, I just seemed to me too obvious that the Rahajs should be as rakshasas as Yondalla is a halfling or Malcanthed is a succubus.
I mean... the overlords can shapechange and read minds. Do they also, by the way, have damage reduction x/piercing and good (and epic perhaps)?.
Was that a coincidence?
I initially thought that the idea of giving freedom of desing was just that: giving players a little freedom.

Anyway, that's fine for me because all my overlords will have a rakshasa form as well as maybe a few other cool natural forms.

And while the Whisperer in the Flame may be the most important rajah as far as HUMANS are concerned, the dragons may challenge that assessment... something that will be addressed in Dragons of Eberron.

Tiamat is the most important rajah in-game. I meant that the one under the church is the most important for Eberron to be Eberron. (Oh so great Eberron)
Wizardman
10-22-07, 02:46 AM Wait... what?

Okay, you might want to spoiler that for those of us who haven't read DoE.
Edymnion
10-31-07, 01:57 PM Okay, you might want to spoiler that for those of us who haven't read DoE.:uh-huh:
I'm sorry, but what the hell? Spoilers for a bleeding sourcebook? Since when has anybody ever needed spoilers for a D&D game manual?

Seriously, do we need to start using spoiler tags whenever we talk about a PrC or spell from a new book now? "Oh no, did you hear, according to Sharn: City of Towers, there are hookers in the firelight district!" Or maybe "Dude, did you see where those drow in Xen'Drik got that awesome firesled?"

Its a sourcebook, not a movie/novel.
Hellcow
10-31-07, 04:46 PM "Oh no, did you hear, according to Sharn: City of Towers, there are hookers in the firelight district!"
Oh, come on, that's not something you need to spoiler block. After all, PCs will discover that just walking through the streets. What you spoiler is "And that hot hooker is a changeling dude!"
Hellcow
10-31-07, 07:39 PM I mean... the overlords can shapechange and read minds. Do they also, by the way, have damage reduction x/piercing and good (and epic perhaps)?
Yes. That's actually one of the errors in the article; I think it lists the DR as 40/magic, whereas it should be 20/epic (not 20/good, epic, and piercing; 20/epic replacing 40/magic). As with much about the "Eternal Evil" rajahs, it's roughly equivalent to a deity with divine rank 7.

My point is that rakshasa can assume humanoid forms and can use detect thoughts on a single individual at a time. A rajah can assume any form from colossal to fine, and is aware of the thoughts of every creature in its presence. They are spirits of a similar nature, sure; but the rajahs aren't just rakshasa with extra hit dice, they are greater beings sculpted from the same clay. I personally don't see the rajahs as all having the same base form (for example, feline-headed humanoid) and then choosing to assume another shape. I see their "baseline" forms as being an expression of their inner nature - of the ideas that they embody. For example, Tiamat is the dark side of dragonkind, the potential for evil that lurks within every dragon. Thus her base form is draconic in nature. She could choose to assume a rakshasa form if she wanted, or a human form, or the form of a normal dragon; the rajahs can take what shape they please. But they are most confortable in the shapes that are tied to their fundamental nature - and the basic nature of the Rage of War is quite different from that of the Heart of Winter.

So you're correct that the rajahs do have similarities to the rakshasa; they are all the native fiends of Eberron, and that creates some basic traits. But IMO they are more than "big rakshasa"; they are primal spirits of evil, malevolent ideas given terrible power.

I initially thought that the idea of giving freedom of desing was just that: giving players a little freedom.
Certainly. The Dragon article sets a baseline and a concept of power level. But that doesn't mean that you have to use it. Rajahs are one of the ultimate plot devices, and if you want to do something entirely different with them, go for it. You could also have some follow the power level set forth in "Eternal Evil" and others be archdevils; no one says they have to all have the same level of power.
Belabras
10-31-07, 09:27 PM Oh, come on, that's not something you need to spoiler block. After all, PCs will discover that just walking through the streets. What you spoiler is "And that hot hooker is a changeling dude!"

:heehee
The_Devourer
11-29-07, 01:56 PM As with all things in Eberron, the demon in the Flame is entirely up to interpretation. It could be just a random fiend (a juiced up Balor or a super juiced marilith), or it could be something llike Rhashaak. Or to incorporate other settings and normalities, it could be someone like Lolth. Personally, that is probably what I would do since I feel the drow really get shafted in Eberron (the tribal thing is a nice touch, and the change with the scorpian god is cool, but it still isn't enough). A cult of drow living under Flamekeep who feel bound to go to Lolth (trapped in the flame) and release her might make an interesting adventure.
This is one of those cases DM's should love because it opens up so much in terms of creativity.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hammerhead 10-05-07, 08:53 PM	I think maybe its Pazuzu since it says he really like to tempt lawful good people.
Alex_ 10-05-07, 09:13 PM	I think maybe its Pazuzu since it says he really like to tempt lawful good people. Thanks to you I now have an image of Professor Farnsworth (the Futurama one) as a cleric of the Silver Flame, shaking his fist and yelling, "PAZUZU!"
androkguz 10-09-07, 12:40 PM	Dude, I sincerely don't think that it's a non-eberron-unique demon. And I really can't stand the idea that the most important rahaj of the eberron setting is not a rakshasa.... but rakshasas can shapechange....
Edymnion 10-09-07, 01:01 PM	Thanks to you I now have an image of Professor Farnsworth (the Futurama one) as a cleric of the Silver Flame, shaking his fist and yelling, "PAZUZU!"... :rofl: Damn your eyes for that!
Cifer 10-09-07, 01:36 PM	And I really can't stand the idea that the most important rahaj of the eberron setting is not a rakshasa.... but rakshasas can shapechange.... Actually, most of the Rahjas might not be Rakshasa at all. Rahja is just a title or position of office, like "King of the Rakshasa".
androkguz 10-09-07, 04:31 PM	Actually, most of the Rahjas might not be Rakshasa at all. Rahja is just a title or position of office, like "King of the Rakshasa". No, many of the rahajs might not be rakshasas. I know that rahaj means overlord but I just feel it's stupid to imagine that the main fiends of the plane (damnit, the main fiends of the setting) are mainly ruled by creatures that are more like the Great Wheel demons. Where's the Eberron feel? I specially can't accept that the particular one trapped in the silver flame is Pazuzu. It can only be a megaevil rakshasa with godlike powers. The simbol of the conflict between good and evil in the plane is the battle between a couatl and a rakshasa. If the fiend in the flame is not a rakshasa, it would be like if the ruler of Nessus was not a devil (I can accept Asmodeous putting the Hag Countess as a ruler of a layer of Baator but it would have sucked if she was given a cool one)
Cifer 10-09-07, 07:49 PM	No, many of the rahajs might not be rakshasas. Please note the usage of the word "might". I wouldn't use the demon princes either, but rather substitute them for some homebrewn guys - preferably some without stats...
Edymnion 10-09-07, 09:02 PM	Please note the usage of the word "might". I wouldn't use the demon princes either, but rather substitute them for some homebrewn guys - preferably some without stats...Well, the idea that Keith put out that many have taken and ran with is that the bound rhajas have divine rank. Not that they are gods, but their power level is so high that the only way to sufficiently represent it in D&D stats is with divine rank. And not piddly divine rank 0 or 1, but like 5 or 6. Stop and think about that, the bound rhajas could actually overpower several Faerun gods. And they say there isn't any epic level material in Eberron... ;)
Hellcow 10-09-07, 10:58 PM	I know that rahaj means overlord but I just feel it's stupid to imagine that the main fiends of the plane (damnit, the main fiends of the setting) are mainly ruled by creatures that are more like the Great Wheel demons. Sure, but the fact that they aren't rakshasa doesn't make them anything like the Great Wheel demons. As Edymnion has noted, by the "Eternal Evil" article they are above any devil, demon, or rakshasa... or archdevil or demon prince, for that matter. After all, these creatures are primarily defined by shared resistances and traits, and the abilities of the rajahs are far greater than those of any rakshasa. You can choose to have one mimic the appearance of a rakshasa if you want (and shapechanging is suggested as a common trait of the rajahs) but it's still a creature of far greater power than the free fiends of the modern age. As a random note for people familiar with "Eternal Evil", the chapter opening image of Dragons of Eberron involves a clash between a draconic champion and Katashka the Gatekeeper in the ancient war. Of course, since Kateshka can probably change shape you don't have to take it as canon - but it's a possible image to work with. And while the Whisperer in the Flame may be the most important rajah as far as HUMANS are concerned, the dragons may challenge that assessment... something that will be addressed in Dragons of Eberron.
Hammerhead 10-10-07, 12:18 AM	Do the regular demon lords and archdevils even exist in Eberron?
Hellcow 10-10-07, 12:56 AM	Do the regular demon lords and archdevils even exist in Eberron? That's up to you.
Q99 10-12-07, 10:57 AM	You could make Pazuzu a winged kitty with backwards hands. You could also make the demon Rich Burlew.
The Ubbergeek 10-12-07, 02:58 PM	How about Jack Nicholson, especially as the Joker? ;)
Hammerhead 10-13-07, 12:15 AM	It does say in the book that its a demon and not a rakshasa in the flame(not sure rakshasa are considered a kind of demon in Eberron but I doubt it)
Revvecor 10-13-07, 07:39 AM	It does say in the book that its a demon and not a rakshasa in the flame(not sure rakshasa are considered a kind of demon in Eberron but I doubt it) I could be wrong, but I thought that in Eberron when the term demon is used; I took it to refer to all demonic entities(demons, devils, Rakshasa, etc....) not just classical D&D demons.
Hellcow 10-13-07, 01:08 PM	I could be wrong, but I thought that in Eberron when the term demon is used; I took it to refer to all demonic entities(demons, devils, Rakshasa, etc....) not just classical D&D demons. Correct. It's a "demon" in the flame, not a "tanar'ri". Properly it should say "fiend in the flame" and the dawn of Eberron should be "The Age of Fiends". However, in both cases "demon" was used as a generic term. Essentially, most people in Eberron apparently don't have enough ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) to recognize the difference. The fiend in the Flame is supposed to be one of the Overlords (AKA rajahs) of the first age, similar in power to Sul Khatesh in the Dragon article "Eternal Evil". You could certainly use an archdevil or demon prince instead, but if you take a look at Sul Khatesh you'll see that you're ending up with a weaker villain than if you develop an Overlord.
Hammerhead 10-13-07, 08:24 PM	which issue is that
Hellcow 10-13-07, 09:49 PM	Issue 337 (http://paizo.com/dragon/products/downloads/v5748btpy7ufi&source=search). Available in PDF form at the link.
Nived 10-18-07, 09:55 PM	I've always had an idea that the name of the demon in the flame is something that roughly translates to "Lord of Blades" And he's still trapped, of course. But it has rather obvious implications for what that army of warforged massing in the Mournland is for.
Alter_Boy 10-18-07, 11:02 PM	If I were to port a being of inestimable evil to be the Fiend, it would be Tharzidun. True, Tharzy was bound by the gods before time began in Greyhawk, but I think the look on the faces of my grognard players would be worth it. Plus, it's a reason to insert The Temple of Elemental Evil in Eberron.
androkguz 10-20-07, 01:55 AM	Sure, but the fact that they aren't rakshasa doesn't make them anything like the Great Wheel demons. As Edymnion has noted, by the "Eternal Evil" article they are above any devil, demon, or rakshasa... or archdevil or demon prince, for that matter. After all, these creatures are primarily defined by shared resistances and traits, and the abilities of the rajahs are far greater than those of any rakshasa. You can choose to have one mimic the appearance of a rakshasa if you want (and shapechanging is suggested as a common trait of the rajahs) but it's still a creature of far greater power than the free fiends of the modern age. [/I] Well, hellcow, I just seemed to me too obvious that the Rahajs should be as rakshasas as Yondalla is a halfling or Malcanthed is a succubus. I mean... the overlords can shapechange and read minds. Do they also, by the way, have damage reduction x/piercing and good (and epic perhaps)?. Was that a coincidence? I initially thought that the idea of giving freedom of desing was just that: giving players a little freedom. Anyway, that's fine for me because all my overlords will have a rakshasa form as well as maybe a few other cool natural forms. And while the Whisperer in the Flame may be the most important rajah as far as HUMANS are concerned, the dragons may challenge that assessment... something that will be addressed in Dragons of Eberron. Tiamat is the most important rajah in-game. I meant that the one under the church is the most important for Eberron to be Eberron. (Oh so great Eberron)
Wizardman 10-22-07, 02:46 AM	Wait... what? Okay, you might want to spoiler that for those of us who haven't read DoE.
Edymnion 10-31-07, 01:57 PM	Okay, you might want to spoiler that for those of us who haven't read DoE.:uh-huh: I'm sorry, but what the hell? Spoilers for a bleeding sourcebook? Since when has anybody ever needed spoilers for a D&D game manual? Seriously, do we need to start using spoiler tags whenever we talk about a PrC or spell from a new book now? "Oh no, did you hear, according to Sharn: City of Towers, there are hookers in the firelight district!" Or maybe "Dude, did you see where those drow in Xen'Drik got that awesome firesled?" Its a sourcebook, not a movie/novel.
Hellcow 10-31-07, 04:46 PM	"Oh no, did you hear, according to Sharn: City of Towers, there are hookers in the firelight district!" Oh, come on, that's not something you need to spoiler block. After all, PCs will discover that just walking through the streets. What you spoiler is "And that hot hooker is a changeling dude!"
Hellcow 10-31-07, 07:39 PM	I mean... the overlords can shapechange and read minds. Do they also, by the way, have damage reduction x/piercing and good (and epic perhaps)? Yes. That's actually one of the errors in the article; I think it lists the DR as 40/magic, whereas it should be 20/epic (not 20/good, epic, and piercing; 20/epic replacing 40/magic). As with much about the "Eternal Evil" rajahs, it's roughly equivalent to a deity with divine rank 7. My point is that rakshasa can assume humanoid forms and can use detect thoughts on a single individual at a time. A rajah can assume any form from colossal to fine, and is aware of the thoughts of every creature in its presence. They are spirits of a similar nature, sure; but the rajahs aren't just rakshasa with extra hit dice, they are greater beings sculpted from the same clay. I personally don't see the rajahs as all having the same base form (for example, feline-headed humanoid) and then choosing to assume another shape. I see their "baseline" forms as being an expression of their inner nature - of the ideas that they embody. For example, Tiamat is the dark side of dragonkind, the potential for evil that lurks within every dragon. Thus her base form is draconic in nature. She could choose to assume a rakshasa form if she wanted, or a human form, or the form of a normal dragon; the rajahs can take what shape they please. But they are most confortable in the shapes that are tied to their fundamental nature - and the basic nature of the Rage of War is quite different from that of the Heart of Winter. So you're correct that the rajahs do have similarities to the rakshasa; they are all the native fiends of Eberron, and that creates some basic traits. But IMO they are more than "big rakshasa"; they are primal spirits of evil, malevolent ideas given terrible power. I initially thought that the idea of giving freedom of desing was just that: giving players a little freedom. Certainly. The Dragon article sets a baseline and a concept of power level. But that doesn't mean that you have to use it. Rajahs are one of the ultimate plot devices, and if you want to do something entirely different with them, go for it. You could also have some follow the power level set forth in "Eternal Evil" and others be archdevils; no one says they have to all have the same level of power.
Belabras 10-31-07, 09:27 PM	Oh, come on, that's not something you need to spoiler block. After all, PCs will discover that just walking through the streets. What you spoiler is "And that hot hooker is a changeling dude!" :heehee
The_Devourer 11-29-07, 01:56 PM	As with all things in Eberron, the demon in the Flame is entirely up to interpretation. It could be just a random fiend (a juiced up Balor or a super juiced marilith), or it could be something llike Rhashaak. Or to incorporate other settings and normalities, it could be someone like Lolth. Personally, that is probably what I would do since I feel the drow really get shafted in Eberron (the tribal thing is a nice touch, and the change with the scorpian god is cool, but it still isn't enough). A cult of drow living under Flamekeep who feel bound to go to Lolth (trapped in the flame) and release her might make an interesting adventure. This is one of those cases DM's should love because it opens up so much in terms of creativity.