Fiendish Codex I : Hordes of the Abyss

[AdvntrGuy]

I didn't see this info anywhere. Next in the monster book series I'd guess.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786939192/102-4240127-4640111?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

 

[johnsemlak]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=150288&page=1

 

[BOZ]

yeah, the huge debate thread.

 

[shaylon]

yeah, the huge debate thread.

I did create a monster, didn't I. Woops!

 

[BOZ]

no, posting that thread was a good idea. unfortunately, after page 1 it became the argument/debate thread instead of actually dealing with the product. i was trying to post links and useful info, but a bunch of others were busy trying to prove the point of why the way they think of things is the best, so the designers should do it that way. i was just sharing information so they could use what they want.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

a bunch of others were busy trying to prove the point of why the way they think of things is the best, so the designers should do it that way.

It's partly about that, and partly it has nothing to do with the designers or product. The whole "what's crappy about Planescape" part of the thread (which I partly began with my ill-advised "why Erik Mona is not fit to sneer at us" rant) was really its own entity, not tethered to the question of what would be in the product - people saw an opportunity to weigh in on their opinions on the subject and did so, because that's mainly what the Internet is about. This will always be true.

The "should stats for the demon princes be included" part, on the other hand, was all about what decisions we thought the designers should make, although it too became more purely theoretical at various times.

I don't even know what the whole argument I was having with Upper Krust was about, but it certainly had nothing to do with the book in question. I guess it started out that way for Krust, but I just joined in because it's a subject I like to talk about, not because I think I have any influence at all on what Mona and Jacobs decide to put in their book. Krust is always happy to defend his theories in great detail, so that helped keep the conversation going.

 

[BOZ]

see it how you will; the hijacking was mutual from all sides.

but this thread doesn't seem to have an momentum at all.

 

[ruleslawyer]

All right; here goes. Can we confine this one to simply a discussion of the upcoming book and (reasonably specific) suggestions to/input from the authors? Erik and James, you still out there?

I'm going to repost one of mine from the other thread:

I simply think that it's not possible to generate a single set of archfiend (or deific) stats that'll satisfy everyone, or even a substantial majority, because everyone seems to have their own take on how the archfiends should be done. (F'rex, even though I have access to the Creature Catalog stats, the BoVD/Demonomicon stats, the Dicefreaks stats, and the alternate [powered-down] Dicefreaks stats, I use yet a FIFTH set of stats for the archfiends!) Since a set of stats for the archfiends already has seen official WotC printing in the BoVD (and semi-official printing in the Demonomicon), I'd suggest doing what I think DDG should have done in the first place with gods: Provide a 2-3 page discussion of various philosophies regarding archfiend power levels (should they be gods? Should they be "high-epic" threats? Should they be "low-epic" threats? and why) and a few example stats at various power levels (CR 20-30, CR 35-45, deific) for a sample archfiend or two (my votes are either for completely new ones, or for Asmodeus and Demogorgon, of course!).

Another, judging from the debate on the other thread, might be a short "nature of fiends" discussion that took one of the following tacks:

(1) A full-of-flavor pages-from-a-thaumaturgist's-diary (or balor's diary!) set of excerpts on the nature and habit of fiends. Subjective, compelling, and unreliable enough to be interesting reading and fill DMs with lots of ideas, but not spell out a fiendish ecology in any sort of quasi-scientific or hard-and-fast manner.

(2) A workup along the lines of the BoVD/BoED disscussions on the nature of good and evil, suggesting different possible jumping-off points for a fiendish cosmology. For example, something like this:

"Option 1: Fiends as Extraplanar Natives
In this cosmology (ecology/whatever), fiends (and celestials) are simply beings native to the appropriate plane, similar to the way in which elementals are native to the Elemental Planes, or mortals to the Material Plane. Their alignments are perhaps shaped by the planes on which they live (or the other way around), but they do not have any special connection to mortals. (and so on)."

"Option 2: Fiends as Deceased Spirits
In this cosmological option, fiends are creatures formed from the spirits of dead mortals when those spirits travel to the appropriate plane upon death. They may or may not have mortal memories... (and so on)"

"Option 3: Fiends are creatures who represent Cosmic Concepts
In this option, fiends are living embodiments of cosmic concepts: greed, rage, light... (and so on)"

 

[demiurge1138]

Somehow, I think that the Fiendish Codex series will stay fairly true to the 3rd ed. planar philosophy - that of Planescape Lite with a little 1e flavor incorporated within. It's not impossible that there'll be alternative fiendish origins covered, but I highly doubt it.

Demiurge out.

 

[BOZ]

only so far as Erik and James have to do so. if you look at the direction James take in the Demonomicon articles... it is a bit of a departure from 3E-standard. not overly much, and certainly not enough that the two don't fit together to form a cohesive whole, but at the same time he's very much on his own wavelength. it's a good thing.