Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

[Shemeska]

Hey Shemmy!

Actually 'kosmic', is a real word.

You probably got all confused because its not mentioned in Planescape, but if you actually take the time to read some books on the occult* (which is where most of the initial inspiration for D&Ds outer plane cosmology comes from) you might learn something.

*Such as the Encyclopedia of the Occult (by Fred Gettings)...pages 126 and 133 for instance.

Kosmic may be a word, but kosmically doesn't appear to be. There's only 184 google hits for the word, which is over an order of magnitude less than I get by googling my own screen name. Now google isn't a proper research tool, but one would think that if it was an actual word it would show up a wee bit more across the net.

And I'm running the planes of DnD rather than the Wonderful World of Helena Blavatsky, no offense to said kooky immigrant keen on theosophy.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

Quick response, what was it 3 weeks.

I wanted to give Erik and James time to read the new topics that Shemmy, BOZ, and others introduced. It seemed common courtesy not to monopolize the thread. When the thread fell into disuse and BOZ was bumping it, it seemed like I could finally give in to temptation.

I'll also tell you in advance - eventually I'm going to abruptly stop arguing with you and it'll be forever, since otherwise we're going to be arguing forever. Hopefully, this will be when we at least understand one another's views, even if we don't agree with them. I thought I understood what you were saying before, but then you unleashed the whole "rival lords can't perceive the terrain outside a rival's realm" bombshell, which changes everything.

...and given that we know such beings are not more powerful than deities (as a rule) and never have been, we can easily poo-poo the idea.

They rule vastly bigger expanses of terrain than deities do, and this has always been the case. Controlling a layer of the Abyss is a bigger deal than controlling a realm in the Abyss. By rigidly giving Orcus no more power than a lesser deity - even in his role as ruler of Thanatos - you've severely nerfed him from his status even in 1st edition.

Planescape did give planar lords a substantial boost in power - particularly in Colin McComb's article "The Lords of the Nine" in Dragon #223 - revealing that they can hold their own against even greater deities. This is how it should be. If Demogorgon - the prince of demonkind - can get his tail kicked by Clangaddin or Erythnul, something is severely wrong. The whole cosmology comes into doubt - how has Demogorgon survived more than a few centuries? Why hasn't an intermediate or greater god taken control of his layer? This was objectively broken in 1st edition, fixed in Planescape, and then broken again in 3rd edition.

The invader could not perceive any space outside the local princes control.

That seems far too convenient, but okay. I don't like your "virtual terrain" premise - an infinite expanse which exists but cannot be entered or perceived - but it makes your argument at least self-consistent.

It does mean that you can't object to me making things up out of whole cloth - which I haven't done, but which I now have every right to do.

Its the closest approximation. Its unlikely that a pregnant dretch (perish the thought) carries around its offspring for that length of time.

There's no reasonable parallel between refining a gelugon and dretch pregnancies. They're just not remotely similar. Terrible, terrible logic.

Figuring out how often tanar'ri reproduce involves a lot more than gestation rates, in any case. We have to figure out how often they're fertile, how long it takes for them to mature, how big their litters are, and what the mortality rate is during the mating and birthing process. You should know this.

For what it's worth, I think the answers are:
Gestation: About the same as slaadi.
Fertility: all the time
Maturity: from birth
Litters: Variable
Mortality: Extremely high. Which is to say, a male and female mate - the male dies. The female gives birth - her young eat their way out of her chest, and she dies. Most of the young are promptly eaten, either by demons, terrain features, or - if she's not dead - the mother. They still reproduce at a frightening rate and it doesn't matter because belief is power, not numbers.

I could just as easily plug in other numbers, though, so it might easily take millennia for a demonic population to double through sexual reproduction alone, or there might not be any increase at all.

I think mortality rates will be lower with more powerful demons, who have other than bestial intelligence, but I don't think it's reasonable to have demon lords breeding their underlings like cattle. That's not what demons are about. If demons are truly creatures of chaos as much as they're creatures of evil, the sexual reproduction idea works. And that's what it's designed for - the idea that they can reproduce with mortals but not one another is the kind of restriction that makes sense in a lawful culture, which has the ability to control its members forms and the desire to keep them "pure," but not in a chaotic one where tanar'ri mutate and evolve on their own.

The hierarchy is based on power, the strong bully the weak into doing their bidding. If Graz'zt tells Demon Prince 'X' to do something and he in turn commands Demon Lord 'Y' who passes orders down to Balor 'Z' who in turn...etc, etc. If Balor 'Z' disobeys that order and goes off to bet on pregnant dretch mud wrestling, Demon Lord 'Y' is going to skin him alive before he in turn gets repremanded by Demon Prince 'X' who himself is afraid of the wrath of Graz'zt.

That's true, but demons are creatures of rebellion, and demons have no laws, only whims. They're an unruly bunch, and the majority of them are going to do as they please regardless of their threats. It's like hiring a guy to herd cats, and then punishing him because the cats don't herd properly. If Prince X is going to be that unreasonable, Balor Z might get skinned alive regardless of what he does and might well leave X-Land and become a free agent somewhere else.

In most cases, princes will deal with their balors directly rather than going through a succession of feudal intermediaries. It's part of what I'm saying about a more chaotic approach.

That's not to say that Graz'zt has no control over his minions at all - that's not what I'm trying to say at all. He can herd them in a general direction and expect them to more or less go there. He can expect them to cause a lot of chaos and destruction once they get where they're going, too - that's what they are. He can't expect them to run a nursery without eating the babies - it's like getting foxes to run a henhouse. That's not what demons are good for.

Demon hordes are most efficient when their leaders give their minions free reign to interpret their orders as they desire. That's Chaos' strength. Trying to control them too rigidly is like trying to open a can of peas with a hammer - it's the wrong tool for the job.

Good lord, that's a lot of similes.

We know that demons don't gather in overtly hazardous (to them that is, not visitors) areas.

All of the Abyss is overtly hazardous to them. It's more hazardous to mortals, but it's hazardous for everyone.

We know that the various realms of the demon lords, princes and so forth are populated by their servants, who don't butcher each other for the sake of it, and theres no precedent for such action in any published material.

Of course they do, and there is. That's not to say it's constant internecine warfare everywhere, but you can't assume that any place is "safe."

Even if there wasn't precedent for the idea of demons butchering one another - and there is - you can't say anything as long as you stand by your "layers that are there but not there" argument, or for that matter your whole "Abyssal princes only rule finite realms" argument, both of which are without precedent in published material.

Actually 'kosmic', is a real word.

You probably got all confused because its not mentioned in Planescape, but if you actually take the time to read some books on the occult* (which is where most of the initial inspiration for D&Ds outer plane cosmology comes from) you might learn something.

*Such as the Encyclopedia of the Occult (by Fred Gettings)...pages 126 and 133 for instance.

I have a fairly large occult library and access to several larger ones. One thing I've noticed is that occultists like to give things krazy spellings for no particular reason, like Aleister Crowley insisting on spelling "magic" with a K. Spelling "cosmos" with K makes it look more Greek, but does it really change its meaning?

 

[Hammerhead]

I have a fairly large occult library and access to several larger ones. One thing I've noticed is that occultists like to give things krazy spellings for no particular reason, like Aleister Crowley insisting on spelling "magic" with a K. Spelling "cosmos" with K makes it look more Greek, but does it really change its meaning?

That's how a lot of fantasy authors spelled it too; Fritz Leiber was one. I would equate the "word" Kosmos with Mortal Kombat. The designers didn't make up a new word, they just changed the spelling in a pathetic attempt to look kool.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

 

[Erik Mona]

And I'm running the planes of DnD rather than the Wonderful World of Helena Blavatsky, no offense to said kooky immigrant keen on theosophy.

It's probably worth noting that things like the Astral Plane and Devas are heavily inspired by Theosophic ideas, so in a sense we are playing around in the Wonderful World of Blavatsky. "Movanic" and "Monadic," for example, are Theosophical concepts.

Just sayin'.

--Erik

 

[GVDammerung]

It's probably worth noting that things like the Astral Plane and Devas are heavily inspired by Theosophic ideas, so in a sense we are playing around in the Wonderful World of Blavatsky. "Movanic" and "Monadic," for example, are Theosophical concepts.

Just sayin'.

--Erik

Could you please refer me to a source that has “movanic” as a Theosophical concept. To my knowledge this term is a complete invention unique to D&D.

The larger point, I think, is that the lower planes of D&D are not analogous to any single or even predominating occult tradition. They are, rather, a conglomeration - a mish-mash - a stitchery of threads from a variety of occult inspirations, co-mingled with unique inventions. I would contend this is part of their appeal and that too close an adherence to any “real” occult tradition, unleavened with any original inventions, would tend to loose some of that appeal.

Take Green Ronins’, Armies of the Abyss and the use of the Qlippoth, with which I believe you are familiar. The Qlippoth were introduced into the Abyss substantially unleavened in Armies of the Abyss. For those readers unfamiliar with the mythology of the Qlippoth, this is no problem. For those familiar or for those who do a little research, the addition of the Qlippoth raises a host of questions. e.g. - At one extreme: The D&D multiverse adheres to the forms of the kabbalah? At the other: There are “tunnels” that underlay the Abyss? I like the addition of the Qlippoth to D&D’s planar mythology but the manner of that introduction, almost wholesale, unleavened adoption was lazy. Grab an idea and throw it in without substantial adaptation to D&D’s mythology. And this is the point.

D&D’s mythology is not occult mythology. D&D draws on occult mythology but then modifies and adapts that occult mythology into something uniquely D&D.

Planescape, like its approach or otherwise, invented more than it borrowed. Armies of the Abyss, to draw the contrast, borrowed at least as much as it invented. Planescape (Faces of Evil, lets say) is then the superior D&D product. This is not to say that Armies of the Abyss was bad; it was not bad. It simply was not the best D&D because it was less inventive than it might and should have been. It borrowed too much without adapting that borrowing more closely to D&D. In fairness, it must be noted that “open” and “closed” content prevented a true integration but it is also fair to note how the D&D demon princes yet appeared in “disguise.” Further work along this line, except more on a conceptual level, would have improved Armies of the Abyss. To again use an example with which you are familiar, think Gord and those novels use of D&D tropes “in disguise” when published by New Infinities. Such has and can be done.

Of course, with the Fiendish Codex: Hordes of the Abyss there is no need to dissemble. Everything is “open.” It would then be a great waste of an opportunity if Hordes of the Abyss too closely modeled occult mythology without making it fit with and accommodate D&D mythology. Occult mythology is not D&D mythology and should not be substantially imported into D&D mythology unleavened.

 

[Alzrius]

This is not to say that Armies of the Abyss was bad; it was not bad. It simply was not the best D&D because it was less inventive than it might and should have been. It borrowed too much without adapting that borrowing more closely to D&D.

That's the best summation of the product that I've ever heard. It pretty much perfectly sums up why I liked Armies of the Abyss less than Legions of Hell.

 

[Shemeska]

It's probably worth noting that things like the Astral Plane and Devas are heavily inspired by Theosophic ideas, so in a sense we are playing around in the Wonderful World of Blavatsky. "Movanic" and "Monadic," for example, are Theosophical concepts.

Just sayin'.

--Erik

*nodding*

Perhaps, though theosophy derived them heavily from earlier terms and systems of belief. The Astral plane in DnD doesn't have a one to one correspondance to Theosophy, or the earlier 'Astral plane' analogs present in Sufism, some branches of Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Theosophy tended to jumble them together, though Blavatsky certainly put her own rather unique spin upon the idea with the Kamic plane, but I'd hesitate to suggest that DnD's Astral Plane borrows much more than a name and the vague idea of it all. I'd rather say that Theosophy was an influence, but not the sole influence by any means.

DnD has had a rather grand history of name snagging on a very superficial level from older sources, but never really using anything beyond a name while trying to yet at the same time assume the mantle of, and deeper meaning inherent in, those names. A lot of the original demon lords for instance have the names of 'real world' fiends and entities, but don't have all too terrible much in common with the real life creature. Baphomet and Demogorgon to name two, respectively have little resemblance to the silver head the Templars worshipped as claimed by the French Crown, or to the mistranslation of the gnostic Demo Gorgos. This is not however to say that we can't develop these same DnD critters subsequently using any original roots even if they may have been planted rather shallow in the first place.

The Devas are obviously right out of Hindu and Zoarastrian myth, the name at least, and I can't particularly see a link between those in DnD with Theosophy. It seems the DnD versions were just looking for a name for celestials outside of calling them angels etc. Daevas in the earliest sources were largely evil. Again, that history of name snagging. Though the 2e elaboration of them pretty much dissolved any problems with that at all and made them uniquely DnD critters with the addition of that extensive content.

And as far as the terms monadic and movanic, theosophy seems to have lifted monadic right out from Pythagoras and some earlier uses of the term, though they may have gone their own way with it, but I can't see any correlation at all between that and Monadic Devas as seen in DnD. Also, I'll admit that I don't recall any use of the term 'movanic' with regards to theosophy, and to tell the truth I don't know where the term came from if it didn't exist prior to its use in DnD. I've never actually seen the term used outside of a DnD reference. I'm curious if you'll humor me.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

I interpret "movanic" as "movant" in the legal sense - they're the devas assigned to observe the inhabitants of the Material Plane, and apply for judgement from the powers they serve. Technically that should be "movantic," I guess, but it's the closest I've been able to come.

 

[Erik Mona]

I'll have to check my library, but I'm fairly certain I spotted "movanic" and "monadic" somewhere in Lewis Spence's "Encyclopedia of Occultism," which is a good reference that Gygax appears to have used when cobbling together his AD&D planar mythology.

Shemeska is correct in saying that D&D (especially in first edition) tended to borrow superficially from occult sources, which is exactly the case. From reading through the "Encyclopedia of Occultism," it seems likely that Gary just wrote down a bunch of names he liked and imported them wholesale into Monster Manual II. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which ones were made devils and which ones were turned into demons, for example. In the case of Dagon and Astaroth, you can basically take your pick.

But just because a demon has a name that can be found in real world occult lore does not mean that said demon matches the decription of that being in game terms. Tiamat is probably the most notable example of this, but there are lots of others (for instance, Marduk from the later Gord books).

My earlier post was not to suggest that the Astral Plane or Devas of D&D _are_ the Astral Plane and Devas of theosophy. Frankly, I don't know enough about theosophy to know how close the analogues are, but I suspect they are thin indeed.

The qlippoth name was appropriated in exactly this context. I felt that the Abyss could use a "proto-demon" race (if only to bring it in line with the Gord books), and while casting about for a good name I came upon the qlippoth and the rest is small publishing history.

As stated, "Armies of the Abyss" is not an official D&D product, even if I did my best to make it compatible. This new book is a different enterprise entirely.

--Erik

 

[BOZ]

It's probably worth noting that things like the Astral Plane and Devas are heavily inspired by Theosophic ideas, so in a sense we are playing around in the Wonderful World of Blavatsky. "Movanic" and "Monadic," for example, are Theosophical concepts.

Just sayin'.

--Erik

i have heard this before. i have also seen gary saying that he specifically avoided the use of angels to avoid judeo-christian inferences, thus he went the way he did.