Hordes of the Abyss.

[Psion]

I haven't repeated questions other than to provide specific responses.

I don't care about the inconsitency so much as the critical comments towards others for holding the same kind of opinion on this issue that you hold on others.

And I've already stated why I see the issues as different. The only answer I have to this is to repeat what I said a few posts ago.

I'm not certain who you are trying to imply is picking opinions at random and back justifying. I don't know of anyone in this thread doing that.

I wasn't acusing anyone in this thread of that, though I know enough. I was bringing it up because that seems to be the accusation you are levelling at me. I feel as if we have been members of this forum together for long enough that you should know me better.

Honestly, I'd really rather talk about the pros and cons of the issue at hand.

Then do so. CW Samurai is not an issue at hand.

 

[Psion]

Right. And in those games where Baphomet is only CR 20, what I said applies - that would be the subgroup that cares more about having wild, ludicrous, yet comparatively low-level fun than creating a self-consistent setting.

I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush. Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.

I don't think there is a "canon" in core D&D, as (like you said) the various books and magazines contradict one another all the time.

I am glad we essentially agree on the issue. I could see some more consistency in the canon of the metasetting. But as it is, I don't perceive this is a canonical claim at all.

This discussion has become very narrowly focused on this one issue, when it's a comparatively tiny part of the book, and that's wrong. But it is a real issue, a real inconsistency in the default version of the game.

Whether you want to call it canon or a default, as James has said, "pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention. It's only low because the way things in D&D work is to start with the base and work upwards. (What would be inconsistant is to provide a strong, and less broadly usable, default and "shave off") I beleive this is a mechanics/utility issue and I think its a mistake to read more into it than that.

 

[Ripzerai]

Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.

Indeed they are. In fact, one could be relatively consistent if, as was suggested by someone else earlier, one decided to use the 3.0 demons with the 3.5 default demon lords (and ignored the issue of gods sharing the same cosmology).

But using the 3.5 CR 20 balor with the 3.5 CR 20 Baphomet is inconsistent. If that's not an issue in a particular campaign, that's fine. If that is an issue, it's something to keep in mind.

I could see some more consistency in the canon of the metasetting.

I'm not even sure there is a metasetting at this point. Obstensibly, it's Oerth and the Great Wheel, but that isn't always true. Someone from Wizards stated outright that Oerth is no longer the campaign's default setting - some recent books, like the DMG II, have used it, but others, like Complete Adventurer, exist in a hazily-defined otherworld of completely generic names.

Toril and Eberron have canons. The D&D metasetting, I'd argue, does not, and I'd argue further that it's meaningless to even use the word "canon" when discussing core or generic D&D. It's simply a pile of options; occasionally, a proper noun will appear more than once, sometimes even in more than one book. But that's more in the order of in-jokes than canon.

"pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention.

Doesn't matter; I didn't say it was, and that's unimportant to the substance of my argument. Regardless of what Mr. Jacobs intended, there's a number next to each of those stat blocks, and a sizable percentage of people responding to this thread intend to use that number in their games, and are in fact quite vocal about their passionate desire to do so.

My analysis, admittedly uneducated, is that those people have games where consistency isn't as important to them as the ability to have their PCs fight named demons of balor-like strength in straight combat. And that's fine. But I think that's what's going on.

 

[BronzeGolem]

I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush. Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.

No, they're not entirely different considerations because on the subject of Abyssal Lords, they interrelate.

In the 3rd edition Manual of the Planes, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided? For that matter, shouldn't Orcus have stayed dead once Kiaransalee killed him?

In, I think, a previous Dragon magazine, Demogorgon was credited with creating the first Death Knight. How could he have done this if he has a lower Spellcraft than, say, Mordenkainen?

As far as Abyssal Lords are concerned, they need to have an amount of power sufficient to match the flavor...otherwise, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Considering the magnitude of their achievements, I'd say that logically implies that they're epic.

Whether you want to call it canon or a default, as James has said, "pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention. It's only low because the way things in D&D work is to start with the base and work upwards. (What would be inconsistant is to provide a strong, and less broadly usable, default and "shave off") I beleive this is a mechanics/utility issue and I think its a mistake to read more into it than that.

Starting with a base and working upwards, though, makes perfect sense when you're dealing with average creatures. Again, when dealing with creatures that in order to 'make sense' ought to have certain unique qualities, I would say instead that it makes more sense to start with a creature that's maximally powered and then lower it through decreasing HD, ability scores, weakening their special abilities, rather than having to think of the special abilities as they advance, or as you want to make them more powerful.

 

[Ripzerai]

In the 3rd edition Manual of the Planes, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided?

Tenebrous had a unique plot McGuffin - the Last Word, part of the primal grammar of the universe, which destroys anything that hears it spoken aloud - even the gods. Tenebrous, then, didn't need to have better stats in that particular case.

And Tome of Magic says that Tenebrous and Orcus aren't exactly the same being.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And Tome of Magic says that Tenebrous and Orcus aren't exactly the same being.

Well, not anymore they're not. They were at the time of some of the events in question.

 

[Ripzerai]

Well, not anymore they're not. They were at the time of some of the events in question.

Well, and he/they might have had different stats at the time of some of the events in question; Tenebrous was a god at the time, albeit not much of one.

 

[Psion]

In the 3rd edition Manual of the Planes, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided?

Either you haven't read Dead Gods or you are hoping nobody else has.

Orcus killed Maanzecorian (and other deities) with the Last Word. The current orcus does not have the last word. If he did, I doubt that his CR would be the same. This is an "author fiat" thing that should demonstrate how petty obsessing over CR is.

For that matter, shouldn't Orcus have stayed dead once Kiaransalee killed him?

By the operative laws in Dead Gods, yes, and Tenebrous was a fluke as stated.

That has zero bearing on this.

In, I think, a previous Dragon magazine, Demogorgon was credited with creating the first Death Knight. How could he have done this if he has a lower Spellcraft than, say, Mordenkainen?

What's the spellcraft requirement for creating death knights?

Don't bother looking; there isn't one.

That's because this, like innumerable other factors, are not modeled directly by the mechanics. Perhaps Demogorgon being able to create death knights could only be done by a demon lord. Perhaps if Mordenkainen had a reason to, he could create a death knight. Perhaps the truth is Demogorgon had nothing to do with it. You make it out as if this is the inevitable conclusion. It is not. You are the GM. You control the horizontal and the vertical.

If you are persisting as a D&D fan with the beleif that there should be some grand unified consistent canon, you are in for a life of disappointment. Where such bodies of creative works do exist, they are controlled by single creators or commitees. No such commitee exists for D&D. It's all up to authors and developers of given products to hammer things out. Different designers have different conclusions, and some don't make canon their top priority.

This book has an impressive amount of canonical research behind it and would you look at the grousing.

As for the priority bit. Yeah, I could see how that would be disappointing to someone who likes a nice consistant canon when their priorities get sidelined. But you know what? I think they made the right decision.

 

[Ripzerai]

The book starts off with Demonic Lore. Want to know how a demon dies? There’s a charming little table that you can roll a d20 on and see anything from the skin of the demon peeling away to rotting away to nothing more than a foul odor. It’s a nice little touch to showcase just how different demons are from standard creatures.

Cool! I'd like to see equivalent tables for celestials, rilmani, and slaadi.

The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.

Wait, so they're implying:

1. Deities and devils originated in the Abyss,
2. it wasn't good enough for them,
3. and demons originated from the garbage they left behind?

How ignominious.

that the Abyss calls to them

"When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you; when you call to the abyss, the abyss also calls to you."

Roles include assassin, brute, corruptor, manipulator, and the overlord.

At least that'll help mitigate the chaos = stupid or unthinking stereotype.

While the book doesn’t include any new PrCs

Good! We have plenty of those.

the collected works of Tulket nor Ahm

Is the whole book assumed to be, game mechanics excepted, from Ahm's point of view, then?

Shiggarreb then becomes a good replacement for The Queen of Chaos and the qlippoths of Book of Fiends make good substitutes for the obyriths.

Replacement or addition; I suspect the qlippoth described in Book of Fiends and The Unholy Warriors' Handbook would work well as additional breeds of obyriths.

The Shiggarreb/Queen of Chaos connection blows my mind. They look nothing alike (Shiggarreb is a giant spider thing (and one of the reasons I think of bebeliths as the ghosts of qlippoth slain by the tanar'ri), while the Queen looks more like Ursula the Sea-Witch from The Little Mermaid) but it makes perfect sense.

Or you could use them both as two seperate qlippoth lords.

Pazunia (Pazuzu)

If they're claiming that Pazuzu rules the Plain of Infinite Portals, I will vomit uncontrollably all over the book.

It'll be just like The Exorcist; Pazuzu would be pleased.

But I will be upset.

Laveth, one of Lolth’s children

Interesting reference. I wouldn't have thought they'd have included that one.

as the new format eats so much space, I’m thankful that no PrCs are included.

Me too. Those who want to waste space on yet more PrCs are wastrels and profligates.

 

[M.L. Martin]

If you are persisting as a D&D fan with the beleif that there should be some grand unified consistent canon, you are in for a life of disappointment.

This is true and wise counsel indeed.

And it's doubly true if you think that grand unified consistent canon should be identical to Planescape, to the old 1st Edition articles, or to any other prior source.

Matthew L. Martin