D&D 4E In 4E Asmodeus will be a god!

[Baby Samurai]

They have mentioned using real world sources for gods (at least Thor). Will they create some kind of all-star pantheon with Thor, Zeus, etc all mixed together? This could be...silly...

Like The Harlem Globe Trotters, but gods?

*starts whistling the theme tune*

 

[delericho]

Now I'm really confused, I thought redemption was a good thing?

It is, generally, and I do think that could make for the premise of an awesome campaign. But it still runs into problems with the 'Hollywood name'. We would have the 'D&D' Mammon and the 'real' Mammon (who are distinct beings, but have the same name, and where the D&D version was clearly named that way because of the existence of the 'real' one). Obviously, when one hears the name 'Mammon', it conjures various images, which associate said being with Evil... and then we find that the MM lists said character as Good?

It just wouldn't fit.

Of course, there are two easy ways to avoid that issue entirely. The first would be to use a different arch-fiend (the name Obox-Ob doesn't have the same connections). The second would be to have 'Mammon' adopt a different name in the D&D cosmology. Either way, any potential issue is gone.

(And it's worth noting that for any Adventure Path, no matter how awesome, the likelihood is that the vast majority of gamers, and the entirety of new gamers, won't have played it. Therefore, they may well not be aware of the context that goes into the alignment shift, and may not read through the recap on p.52 of the new MM.)

 

[Xyxox]

As will I. I just don't see the need for Asmodeus to be a god for this to work. Won't arch-fiend do?

Apparently, WotC disagrees with you. It's their game, so Asmodeus will be a god.

Big whoopdy doo.

If it bothers you, there are other games, though I think it's as silly as being upset at Loki being a god in D&D instead of being the demon he is in active real world mythology (Asatru).

The weirdest thing about your problem with Asmodeus being given god status in 4E is that, unlike Loki, Asmodeus is NOT a demon or devil in an active real-world mythology. Asmodeus is not mentioned even once in any book of the Bible and the only use of that name in literature is in Milton's Paradise Lost, so the whole argument is much ado about nothing.

And for the record, the biggest trick that Loki ever pulled was convincing the denizens of Oerth he doesn't exist.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As one of ENWorld's policies restricts discussion on real-life religion...

...which makes me wonder why this thread hasn't been put on notice yet.

Quite bluntly, I think most people would realize that there are bigger and more pressing social/theological concerns than a big scary red thing with horns illustrated in a gaming book.

What are you talking about? Isn't that what it's all about?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Nor do I think that we have to worry about most accusations of D&D as a Satanic game. That label has already been used, and the arguments have already been countered quite effectively. (These days, videogames seem to be the latest target.)

So, does making Asmodeus into a god make D&D too videogamey?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There's nothing wrong with a dark campaign and anti-heroes, but I for one would like to see less evil in the core rules. It sounds to me as if 4e is pushing for more, which I've never seen happen before and strikes me as odd.

I would prefer D&D to be marketable as a family game, and this kind of content will do nothing for it image.

Cheers!

The stated atmosphere for 4th edition is said to be something like "points of light in a world of shadow." Lots of evil out there to smash, I take it.

 

[HeyJoe]

I've always treated the demon lords and arch-devils as deities anyway. Most of them do have their share of followers in any case. In my campaigns, Orcus or Demogorgon were never mere monsters to be fought...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Doesn't really bother me. It's just semantics...

though it's worth noting that unlike, say, Loki, Asmodeus is still a malicious deity or demon in a thriving real-world religion - Zoroastrianism, which is where he originally hails from (and from whence all the other monotheisms picked up him and the general concept of demons). These boards aren't the place for it, but I would be curious to see what a Parsi or Zoroastrian would feel about this. I wouldn't want people to be genuinely offended by our game, whatever the advertising advantages.

People are genuinely offended by our game, and always have been, because they enjoy being offended, and our game is a pretty good source of things to misconstrue and take offense to. We're not going to make them happy, except by giving them things to be offended about, so I say we try to please everyone.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is essentially a matter of semantics, although I don't think it's quite that one.

The D&D deities and named arch-fiends are almost all either entirely fictional (Hextor, Pelor), or taken from ancient real-world mythologies (Athena, Thor, Asmodeus). As far as I am concerned, WotC can do whatever they want with these characters. If the proposed change were "Obox-Ob is now a god," we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

FIFY.

But, at the same time, I think the use of those names doesn't come with the same carte blanche that comes with Hextor or Thor. The same resonance that makes the use of those names for D&D so strong also implies a certain responsibility in their use, IMO.

Hey there, feller. Don't you talk no trash 'bout Mr. Thor, now. There'r rules 'gainst disr'spectin' real-world religions. When you go sayin' that Thor ain't as 'portant as some demon from oil country, you're steppin' pretty close to that line.

Consequently, I would be really unhappy if Mammon, for example, were suddenly to be labelled as anything other than Evil, even if WotC published a year-long mega-campaign dealing with the repentance and redemption of that character in the D&D universe. It just wouldn't sit right.

Fear not. Asmodeus is still evil.

The other part of the equation is the use of the word 'god'. To be honest, I prefer they use 'deity' or 'power' instead, purely for semantic reasons.

Which would be fine, except that they're gods. Deity is the english corruption of the latin word for god, so it's pretty much identical. In D&D, they're called gods, so when a devil gets his cosmic power on, he turns into a god.

 

[Falstaff]

Normally, I would agree absolutely. In this case, that will not work for me. This isn't a matter of some NPC I can just ignore or rewrite, or some rule I don't like... this is a matter of a demon from an active real-world mythology being assigned divine status. The notion makes me uncomfortable about the idea of picking up and using the 4e rules.

Please note that I am not some fundamentalist reactionary. I've never subscribed to the notion that D&D is somehow evil, or similar. And I was entirely comfortable with Asmodeus and the rest appearing in the game... provided they remained listed as Demons (or Devils, or Arch-devils, or whatever). That was all fine, just as long as they weren't gods. Change that as the default assumption and I have a very real problem.

Demons aren't real, even in the real world. Or are you just kidding?