Codex of Betrayal: Alloces

[Fallen Seraph]

Asmodeus has many powerful servants, but few inspire as much dread as Alloces, warper of flesh and render of souls. Depraved, disgusting, obsessed -- these are how the devils who admire him describe this archdevil. Responsible for some of the Nine Hell's foulest creations, the Butcher of Nessus is revealed for the first time.

So great is the reputation of devils for scheming and for deceit, it is easy for mortals to forget that Hell is not merely a place of treachery and backstabbing, but of unspeakable torments and of horrors. Through deals with mortals and pacts with gods, through honeyed lies and grasping claws, through crime and cruelty and sacrifice, Asmodeus's Hell claims a portion of the souls of dying mortals, damned either by their ties to devils, or through the machinations of devils and their servants. To the devils, these souls are all the same -- clay to be sculpted . . . even as it screams.

Dragon 373: Codex of Betrayal

Man... When you think about the fact that both Horrid Transformation and Flesh-Twister are Polymorph but toward the PCs. That is nasty but awesome! Reminds me of Tzimisce fun.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Man... When you think about the fact that both Horrid Transformation and Flesh-Twister are Polymorph but toward the PCs. That is nasty but awesome! Reminds me of Tzimisce fun.

Oh, the Tzimisce were definitely one of my inspirations when writing this, though not the only ones. I sort of think of Alloces as the Nine Hells' version of a cross between Doctor Moreau and Pinhead.

 

[The_Fan]

Cool archdevil. Get a very "Dr. Mengele" vibe from him. Interesting to note that he is the weakest archfiend so far, as he is the only one who can't stand on his own as a solo.

Ever interested in new tidbits, I noticed a bit about scourge dragons causing plagues. Do we know much else about them?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Interesting to note that he is the weakest archfiend so far, as he is the only one who can't stand on his own as a solo.

I'm glad someone noticed that quickly. That was actually a very deliberate decision on my part. I did that partly because Alloces is more of a "behind the scenes" sort of villain--at least at first--and therefore shouldn't be as tough in combat as some others. But the main reason is that Alloces should pretty much always appear in combat alongside some of his servitors and/or creations, and that meant that making him a solo was really inappropriate to his aesthetic.

Also, I just sort of wanted to establish the precedent that an archfiend could be something other than a solo.

Ever interested in new tidbits, I noticed a bit about scourge dragons causing plagues. Do we know much else about them?

To date, only more or less what's written about them in passing in the MM entry on chromatic dragons.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I had Pinhead vibes as well, those specific powers though reminded me much more of Tzimisce. Hmm... He actually will fit really well into my setting, since all "devils" (actually corrupted spirits) have some manner of flesh-warping capabilities, usually just whatever they possess but he could be special.

As for Scourge Dragons, god damn do I want them! I would be very happy if they replaced Metallic in MM2. They just hit on a nice thematic point for me.

 

[Phaezen]

Ari,

Nice work (again), I especially like the Doubts and Uncertainties sideblock - that kind of tidbit in an artiacle is awesome to have.

Phaezen

 

[The_Fan]

I'm glad someone noticed that quickly. That was actually a very deliberate decision on my part. I did that partly because Alloces is more of a "behind the scenes" sort of villain--at least at first--and therefore shouldn't be as tough in combat as some others. But the main reason is that Alloces should pretty much always appear in combat alongside some of his servitors and/or creations, and that meant that making him a solo was really inappropriate to his aesthetic.

Also, I just sort of wanted to establish the precedent that an archfiend could be something other than a solo.



To date, only more or less what's written about them in passing in the MM entry on chromatic dragons.

I am embarrassed to admit this, but this is the first time I noticed the blurb on scourge dragons in the MM.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I am embarrassed to admit this, but this is the first time I noticed the blurb on scourge dragons in the MM.

It's pretty easily missed.

But yeah, I can't wait until they--we?--detail more of them. (I always loved the linnorms in past editions, and I'd kill to write-up the 4E version of Corpse-Tearer...)

 

[Phaezen]

Just noticed another nice touch, the small descriptions for the 2 encounter groups for Alloces. Nicely shows what kind of situation the specific encounter group would be appropriate for.

Ari - you know if we are going to be seeing more of that kind of thing in the MM2, or is this your innovation for this article?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just noticed another nice touch, the small descriptions for the 2 encounter groups for Alloces. Nicely shows what kind of situation the specific encounter group would be appropriate for.

Ari - you know if we are going to be seeing more of that kind of thing in the MM2, or is this your innovation for this article?

Heh. Not my innovation at all, I'm afraid. Truth is, I did it that way in this article just to keep it consistent with the first Codex of Betrayal. And I did it that way in that article because it was one of the earliest articles I wrote back near the start of 4E, and I'd seen it done that way in some playtest documents. So essentially, it's not really much more than a convenient mistake.

I wouldn't expect to see it become a regular thing in most books/articles because, while it can on occasion be useful (or at least flavorful), every little bit of added word count can make things hard when trying to work within the "spread" format of most monster entries. And while it doesn't seem like such descriptions would add much, I know from painful experience how fast little bits accumulate.