Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

[Grover Cleaveland]

It used to be that only on FR, after the Time of Troubles, that deities had such an intimate connection to worshippers that they would weaken and die if their worship disappeared on the world.

Actually, this started with Fritz Lieber's stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and became part of the Nehwon setting that TSR made some supplements for and included in both Deities & Demigods and Legends & Lore.

Forgotten Realms and Planescape got the idea from there.

Essentially instead of the relative youth of gods being a peculiarity of the FR setting, Planescape translated that to the entire multiverse and every setting therein effectively negating the creation stories of the peoples of the material world

Not so! Remember that in Planescape, belief is power. If enough people believe something is true, it becomes true.

If the peoples of Krynn believe the gods created their world, that's exactly what happened. There's no "real" story of what happened - if there ever was another history, it's buried now beneath consensual reality, assuming it ever existed to begin with. And that history was just as much a construct of belief as the current one.

Also, don't ever forget that mortals aren't the only ones who believe things. The gods of Krynn could as easily have been created by the dreams and nightmares of earlier, transcendent beings of pure thought, long before any mortals were born. They could have even believed themselves into being, if there was no one else around to do it for them. Or they could have simply come from an earlier world - Krynn was created a mere 5000 or so years ago!

In short, assuming that the gods are created by belief doesn't remotely negate the creation myths of the various worlds.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

I think numbers of those 'invented' creatures were simply existing creatures under new names. I think Dreggals was another name for Barghests for instance.

Unlikely. Barghests (or barguests) are creatures from English folklore, and therefore didn't need to have their names changed. And dreggals - spiky-headed, metallic-voiced creatures - don't resemble them. They do somewhat resemble the linquas, but they were a Planescape creation.

Gary Gygax himself is unwilling to say any more about what maelvis are. Dumalduns don't resemble any AD&D creature either.

A lot of this hinges on the power fluctuations that happened between 1st and 2nd Edition.

Could be.

I think you are failing to take into account that the fate of the multiverse was at stake, not some paltry feud between a Balor and a Pit Fiend.

The fate of the multiverse is at stake (more or less) several times in the Planescape adventures - due to the Iron Shadow, the Last Word, and other problems.

Gygax's multiverse was more human-centered, while Planescape's seems more dominated by the planeborn, whose puissance due to their great age and experience is emphasized heavily. I'm just noting a stylistic difference, not criticizing.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A few years ago, I was in the DVD section of a Best Buy. A pair of young women passed me, and one of them was telling the other that:

...

I about cried right there in the store.

You know, if it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Barghests (or barguests) are creatures from English folklore

Funny ... I'd've guessed German or Irish! *ba-dum-ching!*

EDIT:

To add something more useful, I've no issues with the fact that Planescape allowed demons, et al., to "fall in love."

Rather, I just wish it had gone a bit farther to differentiate what exactly that means to something immortal and evil, rather than kind of leaving it at the human emotion. In other words, we have no problems with accepting that an evil human sorceror could fall in love with an innocent maiden - we just assume that the way in which this affects him, and the ways in which he shows it, will be somewhat different from the paladin's love.

Par example, take the Phantom of the Opera. We've got a "Good" love (Raoul and Christine) and an "Evil" love (Phantom and Christine) both going at the same time.

Demonic love should be the Phantom's love - only more so.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Noting that you are saying the modern vampire as opposed to the mediaeval monster, I would like to ask you what you are considering your souces. Respectfully, of course; there was one person on another thread that got really, really upset because I dared to ask for a source.

I must confess that I am primarily going on Dracula as my source, and not Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's version.

I could be missing something (though that portrayal of vampires would still bug me).

Stoker, Polidori and ... crap, whoever wrote that Gothic novel about the female vampire, Carmilla, I think her name was.

It's been a long time since I got my English degree and I'm at work and unable to look through vampire Web sites right now.

In any case, D&D is almost entirely concerned about modern takes on fantasy, as opposed to games like Ars Magica. While there is an audience for things like Green Ronin's Mystic Vistas classical and antiquity settings, for the most part, D&D is thoroughly modern. (Look at the takes on zombies and werewolves, for instance, or dragons.)

Modern vampires, which started in the 19th century and were a popular literary sensation at the time, are creatures of passion, who feel regret, sorrow, fear and love. It doesn't stop Dracula from being a creature of evil, but I would submit that the reason vampires didn't capture the imagination until those traits were added was that the shallow beasts they were traditionally portrayed as are, frankly, kind of boring.

In any case, if the D&D vampire bothers you (and he bothers a lot of us -- level draining always seems clumsy to me when grafted onto the vampire), there are oodles of variants out there. It's one of the many reasons to pick up Denizens of Dread, for instance. You can get your bestial vampire and I get my blood-drinking vampire (along with bitchin' racial vampires).

 

[Dr. Harry]

Stoker, Polidori and ... crap, whoever wrote that Gothic novel about the female vampire, Carmilla, I think her name was.

Festival of Blood or something like that? I didn't get that out of Stoker, myself.

Modern vampires, which started in the 19th century and were a popular literary sensation at the time, are creatures of passion, who feel regret, sorrow, fear and love. It doesn't stop Dracula from being a creature of evil, but I would submit that the reason vampires didn't capture the imagination until those traits were added was that the shallow beasts they were traditionally portrayed as are, frankly, kind of boring.

In any case, if the D&D vampire bothers you (and he bothers a lot of us -- level draining always seems clumsy to me when grafted onto the vampire), there are oodles of variants out there. It's one of the many reasons to pick up Denizens of Dread, for instance. You can get your bestial vampire and I get my blood-drinking vampire (along with bitchin' racial vampires).

If the fiends are the personification of evil, then I look on vampires as damned souls that simply aren't in the underworld yet, and so have no real good in them, although they might mimic some of the things from life (love, healthy appetites, etc.) The book Vampires, the first-edition Chill accessory, had a discussion of the nature of the vampire that I really liked.

To be fair, part of my annoance might be with Anne Rice and/or LARP'ers I have known.

 

[blargney the second]

You know what's kind of funny? I love the series of books that have come out lately: Lords of, Races of, Complete. I didn't even look at this one because its title doesn't fit with the others. Apparently unfamiliarity breeds contempt.

A fiend book would be really cool!
-blarg

 

[Desdichado]

I about cried right there in the store.

Good god. I would have stopped and said something to them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Festival of Blood or something like that? I didn't get that out of Stoker, myself.

Stoker's Dracula isn't the wuss that Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula is, but he has more layers than the bestial vampires that existed prior to the 19th century. It's probably open to debate as to whether manners and the ability to switch gentility on and off constitutes a veneer or a real indication of virtues hidden within the depths of his dead heart.

If the fiends are the personification of evil, then I look on vampires as damned souls that simply aren't in the underworld yet, and so have no real good in them, although they might mimic some of the things from life (love, healthy appetites, etc.) The book Vampires, the first-edition Chill accessory, had a discussion of the nature of the vampire that I really liked.

You and Joss Whedon, actually. Unless ... Joss? Is that you?

To be fair, part of my annoance might be with Anne Rice and/or LARP'ers I have known.

I think anyone who's ever had a colleague come into their office, cross their arms and announce "I am invisible" agrees with you. (And yeah, this happened to me. "Get your invisible ass out of here.")

 

[Desdichado]

You know what's kind of funny? I love the series of books that have come out lately: Lords of, Races of, Complete. I didn't even look at this one because its title doesn't fit with the others. Apparently unfamiliarity breeds contempt.

Well, those are several series, and there certainly isn't a "Lords of" series. Lords of Madness (and presumably this book) are part of the series that also includes Draconomicon and Libris Mortis.