Elemental Princes of Evil / Archomentals

[Shemeska]

Writing this up over dinner... looking at the Rod of 7 Parts box set, Hellbound, and the Monstrous Compendium Annual vol 4 that has the Spyder Fiends in it.

Two questions, for the D&D nerds:

1. Is there anything specifically stating that the Law/Chaos war in which the Wind Dukes of Aaqa fought the forces of the Queen of Chaos _is_ the Blood War? My problem with this is that the defeat of Miska the Wolf-Spider is supposed to put an end to this conflict, and the Blood War is certain not "over."

I don't think it's ever called the Blood War. I'll have to look up some stuff though. Far as I can tell, it's its own thing and an end to it probably won't have any immediate impact on the Blood War, though ultimately it might nudge the multiverse towards law ever so slightly. The baatezu don't seem to be involved, and it's just the Queen of Chaos with her own brand of Tanar'ri waging the war, not any larger segment of the Abyss. So I think it's safe to say that it isn't the Blood War, but a tangential conflict on the prime material instigated by one Abyssal Lord and her vassals.

2. Is there a way that the war between Law and Chaos in which the Wind Dukes vanquished Miska happened _before_ the Blood War?

Doesn't truly seem likely since the Queen of Chaos's minions are a subrace of Tanar'ri, and she's an Abyssal Lord herself of the 'Steaming Fen' layer. Now according to the Blood War timeline, neither the Abyssal Lords nor the Lords of the 9 are noted in existance before the start of the Blood War, so if something like the Queen of Chaos's war with the Wind Dukes occured before that point I'd suspect there'd be mention of it. It was probably early on, at around the point in the Blood War timeline that the Abyss and Baator became aware of the existance of the Prime Material, which for some time they weren't except that larvae were entering their respective planes from 'somewhere else', but collectively they didn't pay much attention to it till later (though the 'loths seem to have been aware of it, though they didn't seem to care since they didn't/couldn't use larvae to make more of themselves like the Tanar'ri and Baatezu would later on)

There's also mention of her contributions to the Blood War, though it seems to be just to pacify the other Abyssal Lords. The Blood War seems to be less of a concern of hers than her conflict with the Wind Dukes, and law in general. She strikes me as more chaotic than evil, and so while the rest of the Abyss is slaughtering the Baatezu in an attempt to define the true nature of evil, she's more concerned with trying to cripple the broader forces of law on her own outside of the Blood War.

Honestly I like the idea that was mentioned above that the Queen of Chaos might have simply done her war as an aside to the Blood War, taking it to the prime material whereas the rest of her kind were embroiled in their own conflict in the lower planes.

 

[Alzrius]

Two questions, for the D&D nerds:

That's us!

1. Is there anything specifically stating that the Law/Chaos war in which the Wind Dukes of Aaqa fought the forces of the Queen of Chaos _is_ the Blood War? My problem with this is that the defeat of Miska the Wolf-Spider is supposed to put an end to this conflict, and the Blood War is certain not "over."

To the best of my knowledge, this is a big "no". Bearing in mind that I don't have the Rod of Seven Parts boxed set, nothing even seems to intimate this (beyond what we've discussed here).

2. Is there a way that the war between Law and Chaos in which the Wind Dukes vanquished Miska happened _before_ the Blood War?

There's no real reason it couldn't have. Although few in number, there are some instances in D&D planar history that do predate the Blood War. One of those is the Greyhawk gods vs. the Far Realm mentioned above. Another is the pre-history with Jazirian and Ahriman from the Guide to Hell.

Probably the biggest sticking point for people to say the Law/Chaos battle couldn't have occured before the Blood War is that the Queen of Chaos and co. are tanar'ri; if there were tanar'ri, then there must have been baatezu then, and if so, they likely knew about each other and were already involved in the Blood War.

The above has several points that are assumptions though. Perhaps that was back during the time of the aforementioned Ancient Baatorians (e.g. there were tanar'ri, but the baatezu weren't around yet, and there was no Blood War between the tanar'ri and Ancient Baatorians). Or perhaps this was simply before the two races met (unlikely, but possible). If you wanted to push it back further, you could even say it was before Jazirian and Ahriman formed the shape of the Outer Planes together (though that seems a bit too far back, IMHO).

 

[Alzrius]

Now according to the Blood War timeline, neither the Abyssal Lords nor the Lords of the 9 are noted in existance before the start of the Blood War

IIRC, it doesn't specifically say they're not around before this time though. There's no reason they couldn't have been and it just wasn't noted (Ahriman, aka Asmodeus, is an example of this).

There's also mention of her contributions to the Blood War, though it seems to be just to pacify the other Abyssal Lords.

I admit I don't have the boxed set, but perhaps she (as with many of the other older Abyssal Lords) predated the war, possibly? Likewise, just contributing troops doesn't mean there's any real commitment there. Orcus did the same thing, as did Kiaransalee once she disposed of him.

 

[Shemeska]

There's no real reason it couldn't have. Although few in number, there are some instances in D&D planar history that do predate the Blood War. One of those is the Greyhawk gods vs. the Far Realm mentioned above. Another is the pre-history with Jazirian and Ahriman from the Guide to Hell.

Of course there's always the sources that seem to indicate that the gods postdate (some of) the fiend races. The Blood War was raging before they became aware of the gods.

And as far as Jazirian and Ahriman, depends on what sources you choose to use as canon for the argument. That book sorely contradicts a number of other books regarding the origin of the Baatezu (Hellbound, Faces of Evil, etc), it largely ignores the Ancient Baatorians, and its ideas regarding Jazirian and Asmo don't appear anywhere else (except as a rumor in the 3e MotP) and elsewhere are disregarded entirely (BoVD). I don't want Zoarastrianism in my Blood War

Suffice to say there's conflicting mythologies. Its a case of if you want to largely believe the sourcebooks of the Planescape line, or toss all of them out in favor of 'Guide to Hell' which itself doesn't mesh with either those prior sources, or the later 3e sources all that well (at least with regard to its creation myth.) I chalk it up entirely to Baatezu propaganda which is then suppressed to give it a touch of legitimacy. You could argue the same for some of the history of the planes that only has source material from the yugoloths since they were the only ones around to witness it that have extant records.

 

[Alzrius]

Of course there's always the sources that seem to indicate that the gods postdate (some of) the fiend races. The Blood War was raging before they became aware of the gods.

The fiends also weren't aware of the Prime, but that doesn't mean it postdates them. While it's true some of the gods came about after the Blood War began, we know others were there before it.

And as far as Jazirian and Ahriman, depends on what sources you choose to use as canon for the argument.

There is no "choosing" what is canon and what isn't. Everything that is first-party (and, IMO, second-party) is canon; in the event of two products that present irreconcilable differences (and don't get divorced ), then you go with the more recent product.

That book sorely contradicts a number of other books regarding the origin of the Baatezu (Hellbound, Faces of Evil, etc), it largely ignores the Ancient Baatorians, and its ideas regarding Jazirian and Asmo don't appear anywhere else (except as a rumor in the 3e MotP) and elsewhere are disregarded entirely (BoVD). I don't want Zoarastrianism in my Blood War

I disagree. First, none of the aforementioned products (Hellbound and Faces of Evil) ever claimed to have the set-in-stone truth about the origin of any of the fiendish races, and that products ignoring the Ancient Baatorians doesn't mean it contradicts them. Likewise, just because the mention of Jazirian and Ahriman's true natures doesn't appear elsewhere doesn't mean anything (especially since the relatively-flavorless 3E came out mere months after the Guide to Hell was released). Finally, Asmodeus in the BoVD doesn't contradict the Guide; it's understood that the stats there are the Asmodeus that Ahriman uses as an avatar...and it hints that there was someone there before him (e.g. Ahriman).

 

[Shemeska]

Likewise, just because the mention of Jazirian and Ahriman's true natures doesn't appear elsewhere doesn't mean anything (especially since the relatively-flavorless 3E came out mere months after the Guide to Hell was released). Finally, Asmodeus in the BoVD doesn't contradict the Guide; it's understood that the stats there are the Asmodeus that Ahriman uses as an avatar...and it hints that there was someone there before him (e.g. Ahriman).

Like I said above, Baatezu propaganda

It just rubs so raw against the PS material that I'm inclined to junk it as a valiant attempt to rewrite the prior stuff but which ultimately PO'd a lot of folks who didn't like Asmodeus as Big Bad Persian Evil Guy. It trashed the Athar. It claimed that anyone who didn't believe in anything got devoured by Asmo which conflicted a nice chunk of material about where petitioners do or don't go to. I'll go with the comments of a few of the PS authors regarding 'Guide to Hell' and go back to finishing my dinner.

 

[Monte At Home]

it's understood that the stats there are the Asmodeus that Ahriman uses as an avatar...and it hints that there was someone there before him (e.g. Ahriman).

Not Ahriman. It was a reference to the Politics of Hell article in an old Dragon that talked about how Lucifer ruled Hell before Asmodeus. Much of that material is based on the "History of Hell" section of A Paladin in Hell, which itself is a marriage of Planescape and 1E planar information.

 

[Alzrius]

It just rubs so raw against the PS material

Again, heartily disagree here. I think it fit in quite well. The only real rubbing there was that it A) presented a clear and decisive happenstance for the beginning of the Outer Planes, as opposed to PS's "well, some say it happened this way...", and B) What it did present didn't match any of PS's material (which was all in-character rumormongering).

It trashed the Athar.

I don't think so. It presented the Athar as tearing down the gods to create unbelief yes, which they sometimes do. But the Athar also have a belief in the Great Unknown of the Astral Plane; the Guide didn't mention that because it was looking at the group from the point of view of Ahriman's desire.

It claimed that anyone who didn't believe in anything got devoured by Asmo which conflicted a nice chunk of material about where petitioners do or don't go to.

Oh no, no it didn't. At least one, if not more, of the previous PS books (I want to say On Hallowed Ground) specifically says that people who don't believe in anything when they die don't come back as petitioners, something to the effect of "even a greater power probably couldn't bring them back, not that most would want to."

EDIT: On Hallowed Ground, page 28, last paragraph.

 

[Alzrius]

Not Ahriman. It was a reference to the Politics of Hell article in an old Dragon that talked about how Lucifer ruled Hell before Asmodeus.

To nitpick, it was Satan, then Beelzebub, then Asmodeus. But I like to think that the BoVD's hinting is vague enough that you can insert whatever name you want it there, be it Ahriman, Lucifer, or even Bill Gates.

Much of that material is based on the "History of Hell" section of A Paladin in Hell, which itself is a marriage of Planescape and 1E planar information.

I really loved that product for that...and for the absolutely epic feel it presented.

 

[Erik Mona]

For the purposes of the Age of Worms Adventure Path, I'm pretty much assuming that the Queen of Chaos and the war against the Wind Dukes happens before the Blood War. I doubt I will ever get into it in enough detail to even mention that chronology, but it is my operating assumption and I've seen nothing in this thread to convince me I should tie it to the Blood War.

I likewise think that the only reason the Queen of Chaos is tanar'ri is that _everything_ was tanar'ri at the time of the Rod of Seven Parts boxed set. I therefore consider this open to interpretation. She is undoubtedly evil, and undoubtedly a demon, but I prefer to imagine her as one of the last remnants from an "Age Before Ages," a tentacled matriarch of a demonic line that is now all but extinct.

My work in Green Ronin's "Armies of the Abyss" is not canonical in terms of core D&D, of course, but I do like the idea of pre-tanar'ri proto-demons who are perhaps a touch more Lovecraftian. In "Armies" we called them "qlippoth," which is an esoteric term associated with "hollow ones" in the magical tradition of the real world. Again, I don't mention the word qlippoth in Dungeon, but that's basically my intent and you can read between the lines if you wish.

I think this still preserves the Queen's cited participation in the Blood War, which would have simply post-dated her involvement in the war against Aaqa.

Another D&D nerd question:

1. Assuming you use the Blood War and essentially the "ancient" history of the D&D multiverse, how old does that make the war between Law and Chaos? My temptation is to say "several thousand years" (probably tens of thousands), but then we've also got dinosaurs, and my temptation there is to imagine that the "world" of D&D (Oerth, for my purposes) is thus millions of years old, just like Earth. How do you guys square the apparent contradiction? Or has the Blood War been going on for millions of years? Are folks like Orcus and Demogorgon millions of years old? Really? Isn't that a bit lame?

I'm struggling with this stuff in my own campaign, and am curious to hear from other DMs who take their D&D nerdery as seriously as I do.

Thanks,

Erik Mona
http://www.superunicorn.com/erik