Asmodeus ~ 2nd Ed. concept no longer relevant

[JohnBrown]

O.K.,

Let me start out by saying, Erik, “I love ya, man” but it not a question of whether fallen celestials are cool (which by the way, what exactly is cool about the Good falling to Evil… not getting all ‘mushy’ and stuff, but really, what is cool about that…?). I have to back Information’s point on this, what you laid out, from my grasp of what you wrote, fits much better in a monotheistic or dualistic view, than the polytheist – Great Wheel view. Every thing is supposed to be balanced in the Great Wheel view: Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. If one takes a view other than “this how it was…this is how it will always be…” it starts to fall apart logically rather fast.

As far as the whole ‘Blood War’ is concerned, I like the concept of Lawful vs. Chaotic conflict, but the logistics of such a war are beyond human comprehension. Yes, I know we are talking about creatures who are capable of greater than human comprehension, but all of us playing this game are human, and if it is not conceivable to us (remember, beings with infinite recourses fighting other beings with infinite recourses over the control of infinite recourses…anyone who claims that they can fully grasp this I think is fibbing just a little ) then why bother. Better to create something that does make sense in the grand scheme (i.e., The Great Wheel) of things.

That is not to say that somebody can’t have his or her “Multiverse” work differently, but if you want to speak “canon” (i.e., actual game material printed by TSR/WoTC) the concept of any one being, Asmodeus, or what have you, being the primary source of evil, just doesn’t make sense. Even if it does, I ask you, who cares? Your characters would first have to fight through a horde of demons, devils, quasi-deities, demigods, lesser gods, intermediate gods, and greater gods, before they faced the “True Source of Evil.” They would surely be by that time higher than 100th level characters, and I would be willing to bet that even the Epic Level rules wouldn’t support them then.

Of course, your campaign may vary….

Anyway, something to think about,

JohnBrown

 

[Gez]

Another problem with the Blood War is the inability of demons to kill the more powerful varieties of devil. Some types of devils have regeneration and only take damage from blessed or holy weapons (of +x enchantment for the really big ones). Demons (other than retrievers) have no regeneration. Add to this the ability of devils to see through any darkness and their ability to work in coherent groups, and I don't see why the Blood War is still waged. Surely the legions of the Abyss would realize that they cannot make any meaningful gains and quit after a while.

-Tiberius

Some comments.

The number of (rank'n'file) demons and devils is infinite, so kill ratio is not an issue. Even if demons were all 1/2 HD kobolds and devils were all great red wyrm, there would still be enough demons to prevent the devils from gaining a foothold in the Abyss, and vice-versa.

The blood war, as I see it, is not motivated by anythig that can motivate human beings into a war. Remember that demons and devils are not humans. It is motivated by the very nightmarish essence of the fiends, in tune with the very nightmarish essence of war. It is a way of training recruits and of unnatural selection. It is a eternal war, constantly waging on infinite battlefields.

It is, I think, an error to think the devils (or demons, or any other fiend) would stop this war for a logical, rational reason. These creatures are not logical nor rational. They don't think in these terms when making war. Logic and reason is the tool you use to design ships and to conceive computer programs. It is not a tool you can use for dealing with supernatural. And all outsiders are supernatural.

Logic and reason is not even the normal thought model of human beings. It is a thought model that we can learn, use, and teach; but we're not born into it. By the way, it's not an all-encompassing tool. Could you imagine something more boring than a logical poem ? It's self-defeating.

Fiends don't work on reasons and logic. They work on pulsions, emotions, mindstate. They have violent pulsion, are hateful and warlike. In this regard, it is logical that they go battling. The war is an eternal stalemate ? Who care ? The aim is not to win. What devils would do in a chaotically-aligned plane should they wipe the demons ? What demons would do in a lawfully-aligned plane should they wipe the devils ? Nothing. Devils use the war because it allows them to unleash their violence, to train themselves, and to experiment strategy. Demons use the war because it allows them to unleash their violence, to cull the weaklings, and to have fun.

On another matter. I've seen some people discussing of devils and demons as races. They aren't races. They are supernatural beings crafted from the twisted souls of evil people. Even if, for the sake of gameplay, there's a number of fined types, they don't constitues races or species. Foxes, eagles, dolphins, elves, all these creatures belong to a specie and a race. Babilith and uridezu don't belong to anything like that. They don't evolve nor reproduce (even if they can cause the birth of twisted half-mortal creatures), nor age.


Finally, to the devil/daemon/demon against baatezu/yugoloth/tanar'ri thing; I like the way they made baatezu and tanar'ri powerful clans of devils and demons. They probably have should do the same for yugoloth and daemons, but I understand the reasoning behind not making it: daemon and demon sounds a bit too much a like. (Personally, I use "daomen" for daemon. It was initially a typo I've seen, but I found this ortograph cool, as it give a classic feel without sounding too much like demon.)

 

[The Serge]

Well, what I am arguing is that the dualistic pre-cosmogony (of Jazirian and Ahriman) of the Guide to Hell is a poor concept for a system like the Great Wheel, which assumes that all alignments are balanced. While the cause (the dualistic struggle) may be irrelevant to the future state of the effect (all Outer Planes, each balancing each other), it is not irrelevant to the initial state of the effect (again, the balanced Great Wheel), which the Guide to Hell suggests grew out of this struggle between Overpowers of Law.

I don't think this is an entirely assessment of A Guide to Hell. If you stop to consider what this text is about, you will notice two things. First, it concentrates on Asmodeus and the Nine Hells. Second, it treats the entire idea of his background as a myth.

In the first case, the backstory Pramas offers does indeed limit itself to Ahriman and Jazirian (yuck). This is because this is there story. It does not discuss the forces of Chaos or Balance because, in the excerpt we "mortals" are privy to, such matters are not especially relavent. Furthermore, the book does not state in any sense that Ahriman and Jazirian created the Cosmos. They set standards for it in order to reduce the impact of Chaos and to ignore the need for Balance. They do not create mortals, nor do they create the other gods. They simply establish the "Cosmic rules" that continue (if you're into the tail end of Planescape) to have an impact on Creation. They are opposed to Chaos (this is explicitly stated in the text), but (being Lawful) they are rigid in their own ideas, and thereby they do battle and one Falls while the other Ascends. There is nothing remotely dualistic or monotheistic about this.

The second premise, the mythology of he concept, is clear. Pramas takes a number of cosmologies (and I do have to lean in the direction that these were likely dualistic), makes adjustments to them (to fit into the super polytheism of D&D), and presents them to us. They maintain some clear mythological elements, like the world serpent idea, the suggestion that there is an afterlife, and so on. This does not mean that the concept is Dualistic.

Worse yet, we have a Lawful Evil power (Greater Deity in 2nd Ed.), who exists at the nexus between Neutral Evil and Lawful Neutral, and yet represents both a negation of faith and devotion to the deities and a potential negation of the cosmos as a whole, which would "be remade" in Asmodeus's liking. What is the basis of these concepts? one may ask. Simply because Asmodeus bears similarities with the Devil of Christian mythology. The use of Hell and devils no doubt adds to this assumption.

I hear what you're saying and, while I recognize the dilemma this could cause some, I don't see a problem with this. If Jazirian and Asmodeus established some of the Laws that govern creation and these Laws were removed, I don't see how this could be a problem. I would have no problem whatsoever if someone came up with the idea that by uniting all of the Demon Princes into one being, an act of utter Law, all of Creation would come to an end. I see this as one of many possible Apocalypse-concepts that is prevalent in many mythologies (including Christianity). True, Pramas does not provide the reader with any other alternatives to Asmodeus being the end of Creation, but again, A Guide to Hell is not about anyone else other than Asmodeus and the Nine Hells. It doesn't even address how Jazirian could stop Asmodeus (an oversight, I think...).

As for his being a personification of unbelief... Again, I don't see this as a problem because his act of consuming the souls of those who do not believe in anything makes perfect sense. The lack of belief in a huge cosmology would be among the ultimate acts of Chaos. And, among the most evil and logical ways to deal with those would be for them to be consumed for their obstinance. Asmodeus makes sense in that regard. He found a loop-hole, if you will, that allows him to plug up an act of chaotic faithlessness.

Ultimately, the Jazirian/Ahriman works best in a cosmology with not so tight a balance of alignments as the Great Wheel. I like Asmodeus, but my campaign presumes multiple evil deities (indeed, multiple co-existent pantheons). In such a state of affairs, the notion of an Adversary, except in INDIVIDUAL pantheons within their INDIVIDUAL contexts, becomes and remains absurd.

My world also has its evil gods and its overarching adversary.... but that's just my world. I see my world as one among many different worlds above which there are the different realities detailed in MotP. Asmodeus is the ultimate, personified form of Lawful Evil in my world, just as Corelleon is the God of Elves in my world, just as there's a Plane of Air in my world. That's one of the things I did like about Planescape: it recognized that all of these entities existed and could interact with each other beyond just their own Prime. So, in my world, while I have a good number of evil gods, Asmodeus is still a threat... but a minor one since there are so many mortals to go around and since most mortals will worship or at least pay lip-service to one god or another.

Furthermore, in my campaign, there are overarching ideals that exist that far supercede gods and even overgods. There's an entity of Life that simply creates. There are some gods that draw on this entity (sort of like proxies). I see Asmodeus (and Primus, and The Lady, and others) in a similar vein. They are the perfect manifestations of Law(good, evil and neutral) or True Balance. Just as Hell exists in many Prime worlds, so too does Asmodeus exist which puts him above and beyond my evil gods (fortunately, he's trapped, so my gods don't worry about him much).

When perceived in this manner, there's nothing here that distrupts the Great Wheel concept.

 

[Erik Mona]

John,

I mentioned something about fallen angels, and you responded with mumbo-jumbo about the Great Wheel and how it fits into whether or not Asmodeus could be the single source of evil in the multiverse. Personally, I'm not actually interested in arguing the merits of Zoroastrian Dualism as it relates to D&D.

I am, however, confident in saying that the fall of the angels is BY FAR the most interesting aspect of the Judeo-Christian creation myth in terms of what makes for cool D&Ding. It did, and continues to, boggle my mind that they didn't do anything interesting with the concept in Planescape (I believe the archon write-up in Planes of Law says that only a handful have fallen). I suspect it has to do with the arbitrary Jim Ward-inspired "clean up" of the nasty elements of D&D, a "movement" that's widely criticized on these boards and others.

People in this thread seem to want _some_ trappings of Christian myth in their games, but not others. Demons and devils are fine, even embraced. Fallen celestials aren't. Weird.

What makes this doubly weird to me, as the author of the fallen celestials material in Legions of Hell, is that that section of the book (at least conceptually) was almost universally praised in every review I've read of the book, with most people saying stuff like "finally, we get rules for fallen celestials."

But in this thread, we've got a lot of people pointing to fallen angels as one of the "flaws" of Legions of Hell. I'm not saying that that opinion isn't valid (though I CERTAINLY disagree with it), but it is interesting to me because it's the first time I've seen this sentiment in any meaningful abundance.

And, frankly, I still don't understand it.

--Erik

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

Hey Erik, I have to agree with you there. The fallen celestials is one of the best parts. I have no problem with what you did, in fact I say bring on more and keep up the great work.

But I will admit that so far I like LoH better then AoA but I have not finished going through AoA.

As I just said above keep up the great work with GR and the LGJ (my favorite part of Dragon Mag.)

I had no problem with with Chris did in Guide to Hell but it just wasn't for my campaign so I didn't use it. I still like the old Dragon Mag. article the "Politics of Hell" and use that as the basis for Hell IMC (not that it has been a part of it in a loonngg time). Also Geryon has been in charge of Stygia IMC too. I liked the GtH but some things weren't for me and I did not use them. That's what is great about D&D, do what you want with your own campaign.

 

[JohnBrown]

Erik,

First, A Guide to Hell is a fine book. I like it very much. I don’t have a problem with the idea of fallen celestials. I have no problem with the idea of a cosmology where Asmodeus (or anything else) is the source of all evil. I simply don’t feel that it “fits” very well with everything thing else that came before it or after it (TSR/WoTC published material). You and many others feel it does, that’s great. I think it stands better as a basis of a dualistic or monotheistic point of view than it does from a polytheistic one, that’s all.

I asked what I asked because you said the fallen celestials are “cool”. Again I ask, in and of itself, what is cool about an evil celestial (as opposed to say an good orc)?

Interesting (as you just said), I agree with. It opens up all kinds of story possibilities (but then, so does a group of Lawful Good orcs). Anything that is against type has this potential. Obviously, the concept of fallen celestials strikes some cord in your imagination that I am not appreciating. For you, and many others, it seems to fill some void in the Great Wheel cosmos.

Ultimately I guess what I asking is what makes the Great Wheel better for having Asmodeus as some great uber-evil fallen celestial as opposed to an uber-evil being that “always was and always will be?”

What makes the Great Wheel better because the Blood War is going on? Sure it’s a cool idea, but doesn’t anyone ever say “Hey, how do these infinite-sized armies moving across infinite-sized planes ever even find each other to have a battle?” (Mathematically Infinity doesn’t “cancel” Infinity…the question isn’t WHY are the demons and devils fighting, but the HOW that doesn’t make sense) Let alone ask, “Why in the world would I, as DM, care to include something that my players can’t have any affect on?” It doesn’t matter how cool the DM thinks something is if his or her players don’t.

I’m not attacking your point of view Erik. I am simply stating mine, and if anything, trying to get you to clarify yours. You obviously see something that I don’t, and haven’t gotten from your written work. I would like to understand your point of view better.

I didn’t create the Great Wheel; I just trying to have it make sense to me

John

 

[Staffan]

Ahriman and Jazirian were two mighty gods of Law long ago.

Jazirian, Schmazirian. Where's the Gozerian in all this, I wonder?

 

[Staffan]

Re: In an effort...

I just figured that while everyone else is talking about their favorite (or non-favorite) treatments of mythology and the outer planes, I could get in a dig at the whole Yugoloth/Tanar'ri/Baatezu versus Daemons/Devils/Demons thing. Obviously, I personally prefer the latter.

Personally, I prefer Demons/Devils/Yugoloth (which seems to be the official version in 3e as well). I dislike the term Daemon because it's just a variant spelling of Demon.

 

[Pramas]

What I am objecting to is the use of dualistic theology in a cosmology which purports to establish balance between the extremes of law, chaos, good, and evil. I am not objecting to your use of Jazirian/Ahriman from a theological context, but from a logical one. Sure, if you rigidly adhere to Persian mythology and extrapolate Ahriman as a "Champion of Law," I can see your point, but what I am saying is that the Great Wheel would seem to be better served as a concept if neutral good and neutral evil entities were used as the catalyst, if and only if a dualistic theology must be used at all.

I would suggest that you and anyone else still following this debate actually go back and read what I wrote in Guide to Hell.

The Jazirian/Ahriman story is not just about good and evil. Their conflict is, in fact, only the climax of the story. The important point that seems to be getting lost here is that Jazirian and Ahriman act as champions of law first, sending their coils out into the primal chaos and defining the Great Wheel. Only later do they fall out. So you see this story is about the conflict of law and chaos, and good and evil. It thus not "rigidly dualistic."

Folks should also note that nowhere do I say that Asmodeus is the father of all evil or anything even remotely like that. Father of the baatezu race, yes. Source of all evil, no.

I am just saying that your concept of dualism as derived from Persian dualism, especially with your interpretation as a struggle between Lawful powers, doesn't mesh well with the Great Wheel cosmology, which presumes that all ideological extremities balance each other out by virtue of both their existence and the entities that personify their existence.

The whole Jazirian/Ahriman myth is an origin story for the Great Wheel. It tells you how it was defined, why it looks the way it does, and how many of the laws defined in Planescape came to be. Since this story explains the unity of rings, the law of threes, and the lack of a center to the multiverse, I find your assertation that this story doesn't mesh with the Great Wheel to be unconvincing.


[/B][/QUOTE]It seems logical to me that in a dualistic system predicated upon two opposing Lawful beings, planes like Limbo, Pandemonnium, Ysgard, the Abyss, etc. would most likely not have emerged, subordinate as their resident powers would have been to the (Lawful) Overpowers (Jazirian and Ahriman, in this case) which originally defined (through intention or incident) the cosmology. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, go read Guide to Hell. You'll note that the planes (save the Outlands) were already in existance before the rise of Jazirian and Ahriman. The story explains how it was their ouroboros that defined the Outlands and how the other planes fell in around the it, thus creating the Great Ring. In so doing they tied up a great deal of the personal power, which is why both have been eclipsed by the dominant pantheons.

I should also note that even if Asmodeus breaks out the Pit and tries to trigger Armageddon, there's no guarantee that he'd actually succeed. I could envision an epic campaign that plays through that whole story. And if Asmodeus was defeated and cast back into Hell, all would be as it was with the Great Wheel.

 

[Erik Mona]

A lawful good orc is interesting because it is an exception.

A lawful evil angel is interesting because it too is an exception.

The difference is, angels (or whatever flavor of D&D synonym you prefer) aren't _supposed_ to be evil. They are supposed to be infused of the very stuff of goodness. For them to "fall" to evil is far more tragic and far more interesting than an orc going good.

Because they turn into bad guys, they're also inherently more interesting than a "risen" demon. A risen demon can become an interesting buddy. A fallen angel can become an interesting foe.

D&D, at its core, is about vanquishing your foes.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that.

--Erik