FCI: The Demon Lord Pale Night in the Realms [Archive] - Wizards Community

FCI: The Demon Lord Pale Night in the Realms [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tiamat2
03-26-07, 10:48 AM I have several questions about Pale Night's relationship to the Realms, but first I thought I would ask the simplest question.

Is the Demon Lord Pale Night in the Realms at all?

What is the default for all of these Fiendish Codex creations: present or not present unless specifically mentioned in a Realms source?

Reading through the FCI and FCII books lead me to believe that most of the cosmology in them is completely incompatible with the Realms, where evil gods are more likely to be responsible for the corruption of mortals than fiends. That has left me to wonder how much of the rest of the books are salvageable for Realms campaigns. I'm hoping that only the home planes of certain gods (Tiamat and Lolth come to mind) and the relative balance of power between evil deities and fiends needs to be adjusted.
ericlboyd
03-26-07, 11:34 AM My (unofficial) feeling is that everything written in FC1: Hordes of the Abyss is true for the Realms Abyss of the Great Tree except for the presence of gods. My suggestion (recently made in another thread) is to either remove those gods or assume the names refer to obscure demon lords. (I'd recommend the latter.)

As to their relative influence, I think it depends on the DM. If you favor evil gods being the primary backers of your "cult-activity" go for it. If you prefer archdevils or demon lords, go for it. It all goes on, it just depends on which themes you emphasize in your campaign.

--Eric
Tiamat2
03-26-07, 11:40 AM I understand that the DM can effect the relative strength of Fiends v. Gods in their campaign, but some things in the Codex's are just unusable. For example, not all LE souls go to Baator in the Realms, most go to the planes of their Gods. The same thing applies for CE souls. In fact, my understanding is that Demons tend to steal almost all of their souls from the Fugue Plane, while devils barter for them. Few automatically are the property of either Fiendish plane.

But the fate of the dead really isn't key for most campaigns so that part I felt could be left out safely without damaging the usefulness of FC I&II (though they waste a lot of pages on those concepts in FC II).

If certain Demon Lords (Pale Night is the one I'm building something around right now) aren't present, though, I'd like to know. It would be great if most are just in by default unless mentioned as dead or destroyed, but I'm wondering if its the opposite.
ericlboyd
03-26-07, 11:47 AM I would assume they are in by default. The only known exception is that Juiblex has been obscured/replaced/hidden by Ghaunadaur. (Ghaunadaur has claimed the name and garners the worship. Juiblex may well still exist in the Abyss.)

--Eric
Shemeska the Marauder
03-26-07, 02:58 PM The only firm difference is that FC:I assumes that FR is still a part of the Great Wheel as it had always been, and thus it includes a number of FR gods in the Abyss whereas 3e FR retroactively removes them and places them elsewhere. But otherwise the information contained in FC:I IMHO applies for 3e FR campaigns using the 3e cosmology just as much as for 3e FR campaigns set in the Great Wheel cosmology.

The difference is academic for most campaigns, and given that FC:I includes such beings as Eltab who have had most of their impact on Toril, there's nothing there that really stands out of place even if you aren't using FR within the Great Wheel. Juiblex being a special case since Ghaunadar has paraded as him to cultists of that Abyssal lord on Toril, and Juiblex has never shown any interest in Toril (or perhaps he simply is too self-absorbed to realize, or he might just not care, especially given his conflict with Zuggtmoy on their shared layer of the Abyss)

I understand that the DM can effect the relative strength of Fiends v. Gods in their campaign, but some things in the Codex's are just unusable. For example, not all LE souls go to Baator in the Realms, most go to the planes of their Gods. The same thing applies for CE souls. In fact, my understanding is that Demons tend to steal almost all of their souls from the Fugue Plane, while devils barter for them. Few automatically are the property of either Fiendish plane.

To be fair not all LE souls go to Baator in the Great Wheel cosmology in 3e, or in prior editions. Divine patronage has always trumped the general draw of an alignment based plane (unless the soul has been sold by the mortal, stolen, etc), and the local rules of the Faerunian pantheon have always held sway over Faerunian souls (both FR in the Great Wheel, and FR in the altered cosmology).
Tiamat2
03-26-07, 03:13 PM There is a very strong implication in FC II that most LE souls end up in Baator, and those that are assigned to LE gods are even sometimes poached by Devils. The same concept is mentioned in less detail when discussing the gods in the Abyss. This conflicts very strongly with how fiends and souls are presented in the FRCS, if not in detail then at least in tone.

But it is more of a philosophical than practical point.
Shemeska the Marauder
03-26-07, 03:31 PM Also to consider is just how much detail your campaign is going to get into regarding the planes, and how much you're willing to gloss over, because a number of the Abyssal Lords detailed in FC:I have details and histories that the 3e FR cosmology invalidates, or presents situations that require a reworking of either the fiends, or a further detailing of a large number of nebulous portions of the revised FR cosmology's setup and in-game history.

For instance, Pale Night is a member of the first race of CE fiends to inhabit the Abyss who were themselves the creations of an even earlier race of NE fiends (the first actually) who entirely predate the formation of the prime material plane, mortal life, and the existance of gods. This poses a difficulty for the 3e FR cosmology because that cosmology is entirely deity centric, and the histories of the fiends make an absolutely literal Selune/Shar creation myth of Toril untenable if you assume that the planes were also created at the same time.

The 3e FR cosmology doesn't address this, so if you choose to use that cosmology rather than the Great Wheel you either have to dance around the issue, or make some assumptions. Perhaps FR in its 3e cosmology is still just one world among many on the prime and the universe is larger and older than it, or perhaps the fiends interloped from outside in other cosmologies, or perhaps the alignment based outsiders originated on planes that spawned at the same time Ao came into being, etc otherwise the histories of the fiends have to either be blanket ignored or rewritten, and so much of their flavor is based on that history it makes things painful.

It's best to consider particular archfiends on a case by case basis, but the older ones will be the most difficult to rationalize some of their history into a strict 3e FR cosmology. The pre-deific/pre-mortal/pre-prime material origin and early history of the Obyriths, Ancient Baatorians, Baernaloths, and proto-Baatezu will be the sticking points that will require some work to include.
Tiamat2
03-26-07, 03:50 PM That's a very good point.

Are you arguing then that no Obyriths are present in FR? That would leave out Pazuzu (among other, less important, lords).

Reconciling some demon's stories has proved difficult. For example, I have had trouble finding out if Orcus' return is part of the FR "timeline." My understanding is that Kiaransalee is on the rise in Realmslore, but she is definetely on the decline in the core books that have come out.
Shemeska the Marauder
03-26-07, 04:28 PM Are you arguing then that no Obyriths are present in FR? That would leave out Pazuzu (among other, less important, lords).

Not at all, just that if you're using the 3e FR cosmology (I don't) you'll need to patch those places where it fails to address certain topics, or doesn't address them in a level anywhere sufficient enough to clear up what might appear otherwise as irreconcialable histories.

Reconciling some demon's stories has proved difficult. For example, I have had trouble finding out if Orcus' return is part of the FR "timeline." My understanding is that Kiaransalee is on the rise in Realmslore, but she is definetely on the decline in the core books that have come out.

No reason not to include his recent history exactly as it happened. His death and return was there before the cosmology retcon, and included some rather explicit links to FR and FR personages in the process (Undermountain for instance is in the backdrop for the events of the Great Modron March during his time as Tenebrous). And I wouldn't say Kia is on the decline, she fled Thanatos regardless of what cosmology you're using, which made sense given that something she thought she'd obliterated had returned apparently no worse for wear, and had left a string of dead gods in his wake.
Tiamat2
03-28-07, 09:05 AM Were obyriths created by FC I or did they exist somewhere else before?

I don't recall hearing them mentioned in past sources, but I don't really purchase every monster manual.
Shemeska the Marauder
03-28-07, 09:56 AM Were obyriths created by FC I or did they exist somewhere else before?

The Obyrith race was formally created by FC:I, however many of the Obyrith lords (Pale Night, Pazuzu, etc) existed well before that point. Their flavor in some instances suggested obscene age, and that combined with other things (like the idea of pre-tanar'ri civilizations in the abyss such as the Varrangoin ruins on layer 377, and the existance of the pre-baatezu race of Ancient Baatorians) was the inspiration for what would become the Obyriths as a distinct, defined race of fiends. The themes were already there, but FC:I codified them and delved into that particular bit of history where previously it hadn't been specifically addressed.
Tiamat2
03-28-07, 10:42 AM Thank you very much Shemeska for all of your answers.

This has helped immensely in building a mini-campaign around Pale Night.
Terraneaux
03-28-07, 05:02 PM Pale Night is fairly interesting, and she has a fairly simple analogue to shub-niggurath in the Mythos. For more information, you might want to check out some of Lovecraft's works, and think about Pale Night as a sort of corruption of the motherly ideal, the primal 'earth mother.'
Tiamat2
03-28-07, 05:05 PM Pale Night is fairly interesting, and she has a fairly simple analogue to shub-niggurath in the Mythos. For more information, you might want to check out some of Lovecraft's works, and think about Pale Night as a sort of corruption of the motherly ideal, the primal 'earth mother.'

You are thinking along the same lines as I was. I had sort of equated the Obyriths with Lovecraft's Elder Ones (though aboleths had always filled this spot in my mind before, the description of obyriths and their subtype traits are more ideal).
Terraneaux
03-29-07, 01:45 PM It's also kind of interesting to think of Pazuzu as a sort of 'bridge' between the inhuman, incomprehensible thought of the obyriths and the human-like drives and desires of the tanar'ri, especially considering some of his occult associations and his history (both irl and in D&D) of helping mortals against environmental or supernatural threats.
Tiamat2
03-29-07, 02:56 PM I'm not sure how literally I will deal with Pale Night as a "mother" figure, especially since demons are spawned from the abyss. Perhaps Pale Night is the "creator" of numerous demon princes, but to imagine her as literally their mother seems a little at odds with Chapter 1 of FC I.

They mention somewhere that Pale Night and Pazuzu are kind of links between the Obyriths and T'anari. Their forms have evolved over time to be more human-like. This, of course, isn't true at all for Pale Night, but it does seem to apply to Pazuzu.
Shemeska the Marauder
03-29-07, 04:01 PM I'm not sure how literally I will deal with Pale Night as a "mother" figure, especially since demons are spawned from the abyss.

Not all of them are directly formed from the Abyss however. Tanar'ri can be spawned spontaneously from the raw stuff of the Abyss yes, but also by the transformation of mortal petitioners/larvae, or through conventional procreation between tanar'ri*. The tanar'ri didn't spawn from the Abyss initially, and they only started doing so well after mortal souls started to precipitate into the lower planes. It might be that literally they wouldn't exist in their current forms if someone hadn't literally first created a template of sorts for the Abyss itself to force them through. Pale Night might be the obyrith that started that process for unfathomable reasons.

*except for "true tanar'ri" who must evolve/be promoted to their forms from less powerful forms

[The notion of Pale Night as a mother of several abyssal lords was there in her original 2e material in 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends', but the idea of her as creator of the tarar'ri race as a whole is a twist upon and was inspired by a scene from a story of mine in which Pale Night is -literally- the mother of some of the primordial tanar'ri types, after her rape and the seeding of the Abyss with larvae from the Gray Waste. I'd quote the story, but it's up on Planewalker.com (it's a distorted flashback in 'Methikus sar Telmuril: The Flesh Sculptor') and my job's computer network oddly seems to view the site as porn so it's blocked for me till I leave here in an hour. But that particular piece was written based on some 2e mythology of the lower planes which has been shifted a bit (to my approval actually) in 3e by FC:I which puts the obyriths rather than the tanar'ri as creations of the primal NE fiends.]

Given the canon sources and non-canon inspiration in places, judge Pale Night as a 'mother' in whatever literal or metaphorical way you wish.

Perhaps Pale Night is the "creator" of numerous demon princes, but to imagine her as literally their mother seems a little at odds with Chapter 1 of FC I.

It's possible. Vucarik, Graz'zt and Lupercio seem literally be her children, either with other Abyssal Lords (Baphomet is her current consort), or some bizarre form of parthenogenesis on her part (similar to how among the yugoloths, ultroloths can birth arcanaloths without physically mating with anything).
Tiamat2
03-29-07, 05:19 PM FC I states the Baphomet and Pale Night leave each other alone and might cooperate, but no where does it state they are consorts or even allies.

Did they say that in the Dragon article on Baphomet?
Shemeska the Marauder
03-29-07, 05:39 PM FC I states the Baphomet and Pale Night leave each other alone and might cooperate, but no where does it state they are consorts or even allies.

Did they say that in the Dragon article on Baphomet?

It's mentioned as a significant rumor in the Baphomet article in Dragon. It's plausible that it's true, especially given Pale Night's twisted portfolio (so to speak) of motherhood and fecundity.
Tiamat2
03-31-07, 01:40 PM Did anyone else notice that under Pale Night's strategy section it states she prefers to fight behind summoned demons rather than fight herself, but in her stat-block, she lacks any ability to summon demons? Since she is not tanari that ability is not part of her template and no section seems to grant it to her.
MerrikCale
03-31-07, 02:54 PM My (unofficial) feeling --Eric

Are you allowed to have those? I thought all your feelings were official
ericlboyd
03-31-07, 06:12 PM Are you allowed to have those? I thought all your feelings were official

All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish.

--Eric
MerrikCale
03-31-07, 06:20 PM All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish.

--Eric

I know
Tiamat2
03-31-07, 08:22 PM All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish.

--Eric

Well many of us appreciate those words of your's that make it out of Wizards, and I also appreciate any unofficial comments you're willing to chime in as well.
James Jacobs
04-01-07, 04:41 PM Did anyone else notice that under Pale Night's strategy section it states she prefers to fight behind summoned demons rather than fight herself, but in her stat-block, she lacks any ability to summon demons? Since she is not tanari that ability is not part of her template and no section seems to grant it to her.

That's an error in the strategy section of Pale Night's writeup that needs to go away. She can't summon demons, since she's not a tanar'ri. That said, I doubt she'd ever be encountered on her own; she'd have a lot of minions around that can serve as the frontline fighters.
GothicDan
04-01-07, 04:42 PM One possibility is that she could gain demonic minions through her 'children.'
Tiamat2
04-01-07, 04:54 PM That's an error in the strategy section of Pale Night's writeup that needs to go away. She can't summon demons, since she's not a tanar'ri. That said, I doubt she'd ever be encountered on her own; she'd have a lot of minions around that can serve as the frontline fighters.

I figured it was an error, but I wondered where the error occured. I thought it was possible she was meant to have some sort of summon demon ability, but I thought it was more likely that the strategy section simply was wrong. Thanks.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tiamat2 03-26-07, 10:48 AM	I have several questions about Pale Night's relationship to the Realms, but first I thought I would ask the simplest question. Is the Demon Lord Pale Night in the Realms at all? What is the default for all of these Fiendish Codex creations: present or not present unless specifically mentioned in a Realms source? Reading through the FCI and FCII books lead me to believe that most of the cosmology in them is completely incompatible with the Realms, where evil gods are more likely to be responsible for the corruption of mortals than fiends. That has left me to wonder how much of the rest of the books are salvageable for Realms campaigns. I'm hoping that only the home planes of certain gods (Tiamat and Lolth come to mind) and the relative balance of power between evil deities and fiends needs to be adjusted.
ericlboyd 03-26-07, 11:34 AM	My (unofficial) feeling is that everything written in FC1: Hordes of the Abyss is true for the Realms Abyss of the Great Tree except for the presence of gods. My suggestion (recently made in another thread) is to either remove those gods or assume the names refer to obscure demon lords. (I'd recommend the latter.) As to their relative influence, I think it depends on the DM. If you favor evil gods being the primary backers of your "cult-activity" go for it. If you prefer archdevils or demon lords, go for it. It all goes on, it just depends on which themes you emphasize in your campaign. --Eric
Tiamat2 03-26-07, 11:40 AM	I understand that the DM can effect the relative strength of Fiends v. Gods in their campaign, but some things in the Codex's are just unusable. For example, not all LE souls go to Baator in the Realms, most go to the planes of their Gods. The same thing applies for CE souls. In fact, my understanding is that Demons tend to steal almost all of their souls from the Fugue Plane, while devils barter for them. Few automatically are the property of either Fiendish plane. But the fate of the dead really isn't key for most campaigns so that part I felt could be left out safely without damaging the usefulness of FC I&II (though they waste a lot of pages on those concepts in FC II). If certain Demon Lords (Pale Night is the one I'm building something around right now) aren't present, though, I'd like to know. It would be great if most are just in by default unless mentioned as dead or destroyed, but I'm wondering if its the opposite.
ericlboyd 03-26-07, 11:47 AM	I would assume they are in by default. The only known exception is that Juiblex has been obscured/replaced/hidden by Ghaunadaur. (Ghaunadaur has claimed the name and garners the worship. Juiblex may well still exist in the Abyss.) --Eric
Shemeska the Marauder 03-26-07, 02:58 PM	The only firm difference is that FC:I assumes that FR is still a part of the Great Wheel as it had always been, and thus it includes a number of FR gods in the Abyss whereas 3e FR retroactively removes them and places them elsewhere. But otherwise the information contained in FC:I IMHO applies for 3e FR campaigns using the 3e cosmology just as much as for 3e FR campaigns set in the Great Wheel cosmology. The difference is academic for most campaigns, and given that FC:I includes such beings as Eltab who have had most of their impact on Toril, there's nothing there that really stands out of place even if you aren't using FR within the Great Wheel. Juiblex being a special case since Ghaunadar has paraded as him to cultists of that Abyssal lord on Toril, and Juiblex has never shown any interest in Toril (or perhaps he simply is too self-absorbed to realize, or he might just not care, especially given his conflict with Zuggtmoy on their shared layer of the Abyss) I understand that the DM can effect the relative strength of Fiends v. Gods in their campaign, but some things in the Codex's are just unusable. For example, not all LE souls go to Baator in the Realms, most go to the planes of their Gods. The same thing applies for CE souls. In fact, my understanding is that Demons tend to steal almost all of their souls from the Fugue Plane, while devils barter for them. Few automatically are the property of either Fiendish plane. To be fair not all LE souls go to Baator in the Great Wheel cosmology in 3e, or in prior editions. Divine patronage has always trumped the general draw of an alignment based plane (unless the soul has been sold by the mortal, stolen, etc), and the local rules of the Faerunian pantheon have always held sway over Faerunian souls (both FR in the Great Wheel, and FR in the altered cosmology).
Tiamat2 03-26-07, 03:13 PM	There is a very strong implication in FC II that most LE souls end up in Baator, and those that are assigned to LE gods are even sometimes poached by Devils. The same concept is mentioned in less detail when discussing the gods in the Abyss. This conflicts very strongly with how fiends and souls are presented in the FRCS, if not in detail then at least in tone. But it is more of a philosophical than practical point.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-26-07, 03:31 PM	Also to consider is just how much detail your campaign is going to get into regarding the planes, and how much you're willing to gloss over, because a number of the Abyssal Lords detailed in FC:I have details and histories that the 3e FR cosmology invalidates, or presents situations that require a reworking of either the fiends, or a further detailing of a large number of nebulous portions of the revised FR cosmology's setup and in-game history. For instance, Pale Night is a member of the first race of CE fiends to inhabit the Abyss who were themselves the creations of an even earlier race of NE fiends (the first actually) who entirely predate the formation of the prime material plane, mortal life, and the existance of gods. This poses a difficulty for the 3e FR cosmology because that cosmology is entirely deity centric, and the histories of the fiends make an absolutely literal Selune/Shar creation myth of Toril untenable if you assume that the planes were also created at the same time. The 3e FR cosmology doesn't address this, so if you choose to use that cosmology rather than the Great Wheel you either have to dance around the issue, or make some assumptions. Perhaps FR in its 3e cosmology is still just one world among many on the prime and the universe is larger and older than it, or perhaps the fiends interloped from outside in other cosmologies, or perhaps the alignment based outsiders originated on planes that spawned at the same time Ao came into being, etc otherwise the histories of the fiends have to either be blanket ignored or rewritten, and so much of their flavor is based on that history it makes things painful. It's best to consider particular archfiends on a case by case basis, but the older ones will be the most difficult to rationalize some of their history into a strict 3e FR cosmology. The pre-deific/pre-mortal/pre-prime material origin and early history of the Obyriths, Ancient Baatorians, Baernaloths, and proto-Baatezu will be the sticking points that will require some work to include.
Tiamat2 03-26-07, 03:50 PM	That's a very good point. Are you arguing then that no Obyriths are present in FR? That would leave out Pazuzu (among other, less important, lords). Reconciling some demon's stories has proved difficult. For example, I have had trouble finding out if Orcus' return is part of the FR "timeline." My understanding is that Kiaransalee is on the rise in Realmslore, but she is definetely on the decline in the core books that have come out.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-26-07, 04:28 PM	Are you arguing then that no Obyriths are present in FR? That would leave out Pazuzu (among other, less important, lords). Not at all, just that if you're using the 3e FR cosmology (I don't) you'll need to patch those places where it fails to address certain topics, or doesn't address them in a level anywhere sufficient enough to clear up what might appear otherwise as irreconcialable histories. Reconciling some demon's stories has proved difficult. For example, I have had trouble finding out if Orcus' return is part of the FR "timeline." My understanding is that Kiaransalee is on the rise in Realmslore, but she is definetely on the decline in the core books that have come out. No reason not to include his recent history exactly as it happened. His death and return was there before the cosmology retcon, and included some rather explicit links to FR and FR personages in the process (Undermountain for instance is in the backdrop for the events of the Great Modron March during his time as Tenebrous). And I wouldn't say Kia is on the decline, she fled Thanatos regardless of what cosmology you're using, which made sense given that something she thought she'd obliterated had returned apparently no worse for wear, and had left a string of dead gods in his wake.
Tiamat2 03-28-07, 09:05 AM	Were obyriths created by FC I or did they exist somewhere else before? I don't recall hearing them mentioned in past sources, but I don't really purchase every monster manual.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-28-07, 09:56 AM	Were obyriths created by FC I or did they exist somewhere else before? The Obyrith race was formally created by FC:I, however many of the Obyrith lords (Pale Night, Pazuzu, etc) existed well before that point. Their flavor in some instances suggested obscene age, and that combined with other things (like the idea of pre-tanar'ri civilizations in the abyss such as the Varrangoin ruins on layer 377, and the existance of the pre-baatezu race of Ancient Baatorians) was the inspiration for what would become the Obyriths as a distinct, defined race of fiends. The themes were already there, but FC:I codified them and delved into that particular bit of history where previously it hadn't been specifically addressed.
Tiamat2 03-28-07, 10:42 AM	Thank you very much Shemeska for all of your answers. This has helped immensely in building a mini-campaign around Pale Night.
Terraneaux 03-28-07, 05:02 PM	Pale Night is fairly interesting, and she has a fairly simple analogue to shub-niggurath in the Mythos. For more information, you might want to check out some of Lovecraft's works, and think about Pale Night as a sort of corruption of the motherly ideal, the primal 'earth mother.'
Tiamat2 03-28-07, 05:05 PM	Pale Night is fairly interesting, and she has a fairly simple analogue to shub-niggurath in the Mythos. For more information, you might want to check out some of Lovecraft's works, and think about Pale Night as a sort of corruption of the motherly ideal, the primal 'earth mother.' You are thinking along the same lines as I was. I had sort of equated the Obyriths with Lovecraft's Elder Ones (though aboleths had always filled this spot in my mind before, the description of obyriths and their subtype traits are more ideal).
Terraneaux 03-29-07, 01:45 PM	It's also kind of interesting to think of Pazuzu as a sort of 'bridge' between the inhuman, incomprehensible thought of the obyriths and the human-like drives and desires of the tanar'ri, especially considering some of his occult associations and his history (both irl and in D&D) of helping mortals against environmental or supernatural threats.
Tiamat2 03-29-07, 02:56 PM	I'm not sure how literally I will deal with Pale Night as a "mother" figure, especially since demons are spawned from the abyss. Perhaps Pale Night is the "creator" of numerous demon princes, but to imagine her as literally their mother seems a little at odds with Chapter 1 of FC I. They mention somewhere that Pale Night and Pazuzu are kind of links between the Obyriths and T'anari. Their forms have evolved over time to be more human-like. This, of course, isn't true at all for Pale Night, but it does seem to apply to Pazuzu.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-29-07, 04:01 PM	I'm not sure how literally I will deal with Pale Night as a "mother" figure, especially since demons are spawned from the abyss. Not all of them are directly formed from the Abyss however. Tanar'ri can be spawned spontaneously from the raw stuff of the Abyss yes, but also by the transformation of mortal petitioners/larvae, or through conventional procreation between tanar'ri. The tanar'ri didn't spawn from the Abyss initially, and they only started doing so well after mortal souls started to precipitate into the lower planes. It might be that literally they wouldn't exist in their current forms if someone hadn't literally first created a template of sorts for the Abyss itself to force them through. Pale Night might be the obyrith that started that process for unfathomable reasons. except for "true tanar'ri" who must evolve/be promoted to their forms from less powerful forms [The notion of Pale Night as a mother of several abyssal lords was there in her original 2e material in 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends', but the idea of her as creator of the tarar'ri race as a whole is a twist upon and was inspired by a scene from a story of mine in which Pale Night is -literally- the mother of some of the primordial tanar'ri types, after her rape and the seeding of the Abyss with larvae from the Gray Waste. I'd quote the story, but it's up on Planewalker.com (it's a distorted flashback in 'Methikus sar Telmuril: The Flesh Sculptor') and my job's computer network oddly seems to view the site as porn so it's blocked for me till I leave here in an hour. But that particular piece was written based on some 2e mythology of the lower planes which has been shifted a bit (to my approval actually) in 3e by FC:I which puts the obyriths rather than the tanar'ri as creations of the primal NE fiends.] Given the canon sources and non-canon inspiration in places, judge Pale Night as a 'mother' in whatever literal or metaphorical way you wish. Perhaps Pale Night is the "creator" of numerous demon princes, but to imagine her as literally their mother seems a little at odds with Chapter 1 of FC I. It's possible. Vucarik, Graz'zt and Lupercio seem literally be her children, either with other Abyssal Lords (Baphomet is her current consort), or some bizarre form of parthenogenesis on her part (similar to how among the yugoloths, ultroloths can birth arcanaloths without physically mating with anything).
Tiamat2 03-29-07, 05:19 PM	FC I states the Baphomet and Pale Night leave each other alone and might cooperate, but no where does it state they are consorts or even allies. Did they say that in the Dragon article on Baphomet?
Shemeska the Marauder 03-29-07, 05:39 PM	FC I states the Baphomet and Pale Night leave each other alone and might cooperate, but no where does it state they are consorts or even allies. Did they say that in the Dragon article on Baphomet? It's mentioned as a significant rumor in the Baphomet article in Dragon. It's plausible that it's true, especially given Pale Night's twisted portfolio (so to speak) of motherhood and fecundity.
Tiamat2 03-31-07, 01:40 PM	Did anyone else notice that under Pale Night's strategy section it states she prefers to fight behind summoned demons rather than fight herself, but in her stat-block, she lacks any ability to summon demons? Since she is not tanari that ability is not part of her template and no section seems to grant it to her.
MerrikCale 03-31-07, 02:54 PM	My (unofficial) feeling --Eric Are you allowed to have those? I thought all your feelings were official
ericlboyd 03-31-07, 06:12 PM	Are you allowed to have those? I thought all your feelings were official All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish. --Eric
MerrikCale 03-31-07, 06:20 PM	All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish. --Eric I know
Tiamat2 03-31-07, 08:22 PM	All my musings on these and other boards are unofficial and as a fan. I'm a freelancer, not an employee, and do not speak for WoTC in any fashion except for those words of mine they choose to publish. --Eric Well many of us appreciate those words of your's that make it out of Wizards, and I also appreciate any unofficial comments you're willing to chime in as well.
James Jacobs 04-01-07, 04:41 PM	Did anyone else notice that under Pale Night's strategy section it states she prefers to fight behind summoned demons rather than fight herself, but in her stat-block, she lacks any ability to summon demons? Since she is not tanari that ability is not part of her template and no section seems to grant it to her. That's an error in the strategy section of Pale Night's writeup that needs to go away. She can't summon demons, since she's not a tanar'ri. That said, I doubt she'd ever be encountered on her own; she'd have a lot of minions around that can serve as the frontline fighters.
GothicDan 04-01-07, 04:42 PM	One possibility is that she could gain demonic minions through her 'children.'
Tiamat2 04-01-07, 04:54 PM	That's an error in the strategy section of Pale Night's writeup that needs to go away. She can't summon demons, since she's not a tanar'ri. That said, I doubt she'd ever be encountered on her own; she'd have a lot of minions around that can serve as the frontline fighters. I figured it was an error, but I wondered where the error occured. I thought it was possible she was meant to have some sort of summon demon ability, but I thought it was more likely that the strategy section simply was wrong. Thanks.