Asmodeus ~ 2nd Ed. concept no longer relevant

[The Sigil]

Re: Check it out...

You know, you may just see it published somewhere... watch the d20 Publisher's message board tomorrow, in fact. (hint hint)

If you were interested in my cosmology concepts (drawing deific power by controlling a plane), you might want to check out the following link -

http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11896

In the Upcoming Products section you will find a little blurb... one of these days I hope to get a whole sourcebook published on the matter.

--The Sigil

 

[ruleslawyer]

Re: Thoughts...

I agree... it can absolutely be played as "gods derive power from faith of their followers." Obviously, it can be... it usually is!

Actually, the D&D default assumption states exactly the opposite, and as such agrees with you! From DDG p.13 (sidebar):

The deities of the D&D pantheon are independent of mortals for their power, though it's clear that many use worshipers to augment their power.

So, as hong pointed out, FR actually makes a distinction from the core cosmology in stating that deific power is dependent on the faith of worshipers.

I just happen not to be terribly thrilled about it and figured that in addition to trying to figure out how to walk the line for devils between "big ol' outsider" and "honest-to-itself" deity perhaps I could present an optional interpretation of how gods got to be gods. I will be the first one to say that this view is not necessarily popular or even desirable... it's just an idea I was throwing out there as a possible "non-canonical alternative nature of divinity."

Funny thing is, now that I re-read your original post, I realize that your core cosmological concept (the distinction between semi-divine beings and deities) actually works with either the dependent or independent option. Moreover, your concept (but using the dependent option) is almost precisely what I have in place IMC!

Thanks for your feedback, though... it's good to get dissenting views, too, so you can work on the holes in your ideas.

--The Sigil

No problem!

 

[Desdichado]

The Sigil:
Thanks for your feedback, though... it's good to get dissenting views, too, so you can work on the holes in your ideas.

Such as the fact that if outsiders are infertile there could be no such thing as half-outsiders and planetouched?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Whether or not you approve of Asmodeus himself being an all-powerful deity AHRIMAN is an all-powerful deity. You can seperate Asmodeus from Ahriman, but Ahriman will always be on the level of a greater deity or higher. Ahriman is the supreme incarnation of Evil in the Zoroatrian religion.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Whether or not you approve of Asmodeus himself being an all-powerful deity AHRIMAN is an all-powerful deity. You can seperate Asmodeus from Ahriman, but Ahriman will always be on the level of a greater deity or higher. Ahriman is the supreme incarnation of Evil in the Zoroatrian religion.

I don't think that guy exists in the Greyhawk cosmology. The supreme evil is Tharizdrun(sp?), or the Elder Elemental God who has somehow become part of Tharizdrun in 3e.

 

[The Sigil]

I hope...

[/color]
Such as the fact that if outsiders are infertile there could be no such thing as half-outsiders and planetouched?

I hope I was clear on this point... perhaps I wasn't. It's kind of a fudge at this point... they are "semi-infertile" in that they can mate with non-outsiders and produce offspring (outsider plus something else = offspring) but cannot mate with other outsiders and produce offspring.

It's not a perfect fix, but you don't (usually) think of demons mating to raise baby demons. You don't think of angels mating to raise baby angels. At least I don't. I think of evil people dying and becoming demons. Good people die and become angels. In other words, the demons/angels/devils can't procreate and make their race bigger on their own - mortals (non-outsiders) are required for a demon/angel/devil to be "born" rather than two outsider parents.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

*grumble*

Whether or not you approve of Asmodeus himself being an all-powerful deity AHRIMAN is an all-powerful deity. You can seperate Asmodeus from Ahriman, but Ahriman will always be on the level of a greater deity or higher. Ahriman is the supreme incarnation of Evil in the Zoroatrian religion.

This is rather a silly statement to make, IMO, because we are getting into RL religion here... In essence it says, "Judeo-Christianity isn't useful but Zoroastrian is." IOW, it is a slap in the face of Judeo-Christianity, where Satan/Asmodeus/Baalzebub/The Devil/Whatever name you Wish To Call Him is the supreme incarnation of Evil. Heck, there are probably people who believe with all their hearts that Bill Gates/Microsoft/Michael Eisner/Disney/America ("the Great Satan")/Islam ("those wacky radicals")/Environmentalists/Ozone/Cthulhu/Whatever-the-heck-you-can-think-of is the supreme incarnation of evil.

Point is, be *very* careful when involving RW religion in the discussion of a game, especially when attempting to elevate one religion's "validity" over another. I do not wish to belittle any RW religion (hence I believe it is a pretty good practice to use fictional religions such as Greyhawk, FR, or even Tolkien in games to avoid these conflicts) with these comments, I just hope that they serve to illustrate the potential problem.

If you give credence to a religion extinct or not, in terms of it dictating the power level of fictional deities in your games, then it stands to reason that you ought to give the same level of credence to EVERY religion.

If you want say that Ahriman must be a greater power because he is so depicted in Zoroastrian belief, that's fine. But you had best also be willing to admit that Asmodeus/Satan/Whatever must be a greater power also, because he is so depicted in Judeo-Christian belief.

If you wish to say, "my campaign works thusly based upon my own beliefs" I have no problem with that. But DON'T try to force your religion of choice down somebody else's throat or this will devolve into a flame war.

Heck, I could claim that according to my belief, *I* am the source of ultimate evil, the one who made evil before there even was an incarnation. Should that make ME a greater power in your campaign?

--The Sigil

 

[Kobold Avenger]

You're obviously reading too much into the statement. As I did not state whatever the it was you just wrote in you last message. If your now going to make this an issue of religions, then I'll have to further derail this thread into something else.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Whoa. Chill there, Kobold. I don't think there was any intent for offense there. I think Sigil was just pointing out that there's no reason to give any more credence--or any less--to one RL religion than any other when it comes to statting out characters in D&D campaigns. All he was saying--at least in my interpretation--was that someone creating their own D&D cosmology doesn't "have" to make Ahriman a deity anymore than someone "has" to make Asmodeus one.

No need for this to turn nasty.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yar. RL religion doesn't have to be followed by anyone, and, in fact, a case could be made to avoid it entirely in-game.

So, no, nothing *has* to be a greater deity of evil just because it was in such-and-such a faith.

IMC, demons and devils are actually the weak ones. Forces them to be a lot more creative to come up with the masterful plots they do.

They are more numerous, but weaker. And when they create a plan that works, it REALLY works. Unfortunately for them, they can't stand up to a one-on-one fight with a powerful mortal, let alone an agent of another deity, or the deity themselves. So they usually have to hide and gain power in secret, using lies, deception, and any other means at their disposal to keep the forces of good on their toes.