Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

[MrFilthyIke]

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard

Words of wisdom :\

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know, I'm a big Planescape fan. It's one of maybe half-a-dozen published settings in which I have run, or would run, games. (I normally prefer homebrew.)

But honestly, I was never thrilled with what PS did with the fiends. I know it was due primarily to the atmosphere of the time, and TSR's desire to tone down the "demon" references. But I always felt they were more evil, and more menacing, before PS.

So frankly, given what I know of Erik's ideas and his style of writing, if forced to choose between his take on the fiends and that presented in PS, I'll take Erik's any time.

 

[Erik Mona]

No, we don't. Your Gamagin and Ipos, on the other hand, are very much on the cheesy side, so you don't particularly have a high ground to peer your nose down from. Or turn it up, as the case may be.

My Gamagin and Ipos were inspired from real world occult tradition, so surely some of the blame can be spread around to the likes of Wierus, Spence, Crowley, and MacGregor-Mathers. But whatever. It's not like someone's opinion on what demons are cool and what demons aren't is an objective measure, anyway.

Oh, god, you haven't resurrected Gygax's horrible abat-dolor idea, have you? Yeah, an entire race of Graz'zts - that's not lame at all!

Arguing over what is or isn't "lame" strikes me as a pursuit of limited utility. I have no problem with Gygax's approach to Graz'zt's origins (he invented Graz'zt, after all), but within the context of an official D&D product it's all a bit academic, since the abat-dolor material appeared in a New Infinities novel and is not within the copyright of Wizards of the Coast.

Therefore, my opinion on the abat-dolor is moot vis a vis the topic at hand.

Pale Night is fascinating for any number of reasons other than her progeny, in any case.

I agree with this, actually. She's only ever had a few paragraphs of description, so she's far from hopeless.

Honestly, a semi-spectral matron figure, ancient beyond worlds and words, ruling from a tower of bones, consort to a hundred lords, mother to a thousand young... where is the poetry in your soul that this doesn't grab you?

It does grab me. I don't have a problem with Pale Night as a general concept. As described by you, she seems quite compelling. As a catch-all mother demon for a bunch of previously detailed demon lords, not so much. But hey, it's just my opinion.

Agreed, but your opinion would be more credible if it your memory weren't so hazy. Anyone whose mind invents a claim of fraternity between Orcus and Graz'zt (which isn't remotely suggested anywhere) hasn't done his research recently or well.

I would hazard to guess that I've done as much research on the topic as just about anyone, both recently and in years past. I am beginning to suspect that my memory of an Orcus/Graz'zt familial tie comes from a draft of "Faces of Evil," and that the link did not make it into the final product, perhaps at my suggestion. Since I do not have my references or working files from a decade-old product here at work, I cannot say for sure.

I'm fairly intrigued by the vitriol in your post. I didn't realize my comment was anywhere near as offensive as it must have been.

Here's hoping James Jacobs picked up your slack! Fortunately, his own articles are so well-researched that I have every reason to believe he has.

James is a true talent, to be sure. I'll let him comment, if he cares to, on whether I know what I'm talking about when it comes to demons in D&D.

As Harlan Ellison once put it, you're not entitled your opinion - you're only entitled to an informed opinion. The designers who came before you deserve better.

Yeah, sorry I can't place the Graz'zt/Orcus reference off the top of my head. I shall endeavor to do better next time. I should think my work speaks for itself insofar as respect for "designers who came before" is concerned. A good place to start looking would be Dungeon #116.

--Erik

 

[BOZ]

i have to agree with ya there, mousey. the Planescape abyssal lords were just fine IMO, but i wish that they meshed better with the pre-existing ones.

the problem with them is that they are really little more than concepts, whereas the 1E lords felt more like characters. this can all be rectified though, with the Demonomicon articles.

 

[Erik Mona]

i have to agree with ya there, mousey. the Planescape abyssal lords were just fine IMO, but i wish that they meshed better with the pre-existing ones.

That's really all I was trying to say. One Planescape lord I really like is Lynkhab, by the way. I find her very interesting and appreciate the "high-concept" element of her origin.

After Greyhawk, Planescape is my second favorite campaign setting. Please don't take my one comment about not appreciating certain elements of how they handled fiends as a condemnation of the whole setting or any of the people who worked on it.

--Erik

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Play nice or you'll all be made to listen to Michael Bolton.

 

[BOZ]

so, is this "Hordes of the Abyss" as in a general ecology of the Abyss? or is it demons mostly/only?

 

[James Jacobs]

One thing to keep in mind (Erik touched on this in one of his posts above) is that during 2nd edition (and by extension, Planescape), TSR abandoned the word "Demon" (and "devil," etc.). Now certainly, a lot of great material about the lords of the Abyss came out of Planescape, but a lot of the history and real-world weight of the concept of "demons" was lost when the designers had to abandon real-world occult tradition as a source of inspiration. Some great stuff came out of this era, but it was hampered by the anti-demon stance TSR management had at the time.

One of the primary goals for this book is to provide the definitive sourcebook for D&D's demons (and by extension, the Abyss itself). We'll be able to treat the demons and concepts introduced in Planescape without having to skirt issues or make up new names for old concepts. You can expect coverage of pretty much everything that has been mentioned about demons and the Abyss since the grand good old days. Including demon princes.

In any event, neither Erik (who does indeed know a LOT about D&D's official demons... probably more so than anyone else in the industry, I'm willing to say) nor I are at liberty to really discuss what will or will not be in this book at this time. We'll both certainly be keeping an eye on these boards for anything remotely connected to demon-talk though (as we have been for the past several months, in fact).

As for respecting the designers who've come before us... well, let me just say that if anything in this book comes off as disrespectful of their work, I'll certainly consider the book itself a failure. Respecting the work of earlier designers is what this job should be about.

 

[coyote6]

I'm curious -- speaking in purely hypothetical terms, will FCI:HotA mesh with stuff in Armies of the Abyss? You probably won't be mentioning qlippoth, I imagine, but will the Hordes leave "room" for the qlippoth, and for Armies' demon lords?

 

[Erik Mona]

As James said above, we're not really at liberty to discuss details, but I will say that "Armies of the Abyss" was written to be 99.7% compatible with official D&D, and I'm not exactly going out of my way to lower that percentage with new material I've written. Likewise, I'm also not in a hurry to invalidate anything that's been printed within the context of official D&D (including info on Pale Night, my friends), so I urge you to draw your own conclusions.

--Erik