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

[azarias]

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.

Anyway, enough of the real world. What I like about this move is that the d&d Asmodeus is a creation with a strong and well-fleshed personality. On that basis alone I like the idea that he might be getting more limelight. He seems to me a much richer, rounded character than, say, Tiamat or Demogorgon.

 

[Numion]

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

Nawh

Picture two adventure premises:

a) Fighting Devils lead by Asmodeus in Hell

b) Fighting Naughties lead by Lil' Asmo in Heck

I'll choose a) every time

 

[UndeadScottsman]

One thing that I have noticed is that there is some talk of alternate sources of power for characters. So, in addition to divine, arcane, and psionic, we may have celestial or infernal power sources. (So, possibly an archdevil may be able to help supply a person with additional power for a price. Hmm, maybe it is time for a few DMs to re-read Faust.)

Would be a good time to introduce Aasimar's as a player race.

 

[Aloïsius]

Yes, and Milton's Asmodeus is just a Latin-ifying of the Greek version of some Arabic transcription of that name. S versus Sh is not distinctive in some language sets (but is in others, hence "shibboleth"), replacing a final -e or -ae with -eos or -eas is a common Greekifying, -eus is the Latin equivalent.

Asmodeus (latin) is known also as Asmodée[french, since 15th century], Asmoth, Aschmédaï, Asmoday, Aesma, Asmadai, Asmodius, Asmodaios, Hasmoday, Chashmodai, Azmonden, Sydonaï.

But its ethymologie is : Aeschma-daeva, wich is a persan word meaning (IIRC) "flaming breath spirit". So, at first, it was probably something akin to an effrit. But it has been made one of the top-demon by Christian theology, during the middle-age.

 

[delericho]

When viewed through that lens, does it really make a difference if D&D's Asmodeus is "an arch-fiend" or "a god"? After all, D&D's deities are pantheistic, and thus pagan deities by any monotheistic definition. As such, changing Asmodeus from "devil" to "god" is purely one of semantics, yes?

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). 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.

However, there is another category of named fiends, that is perhaps best described as "names Hollywood might use for a Christian-esque horror film". This includes the likes of Asmodeus, Mammon, Baalzebul, Molech, Lucifer, and so forth. Now, I actually like that D&D uses these names - together with elements such as the World Tree, the River Styx, the structure of the Nine Hells, and the like, they provide a really strong and resonant framework for the D&D cosmology.

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.

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.

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. However, the use of 'god' for the fictional D&D gods doesn't offend me in the slightest. When it's attached to these 'Hollywood' names, though... I dunno, it feels like they're drawing an equivalence that shouldn't be there. (And I have no problem with them being arch-fiends, or even being described as having "power that rivals that of the gods themselves". But attach the word 'god', or stat them with Divine Rank, or its 4e equivalent, and I have a problem.)

I don't think WoTC cares about fundamentalists, and I approve it.

I quite agree - it would be folly to try to appease the anti-D&D crowd.

When asked by fellow Christians about D&D, I have always said that I have read the books, considered the matter carefully, and found there is no contradiction. I have also always said that the moment I feel there is a contradiction, I will walk away from gaming, because when there's a conflict between my hobby and my faith there will only ever be one winner.

This decision feels an awful lot like a contradiction, and since I'd rather not give up on a hobby I've enjoyed for twenty years now, I thought I'd speak up about it.

Nawh

Picture two adventure premises:

a) Fighting Devils lead by Asmodeus in Hell

b) Fighting Naughties lead by Lil' Asmo in Heck

I'll choose a) every time

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?

 

[fuindordm]

Where do you get that idea? Just because Asmodeus is a deity in this edition? Every edition has had evil gods. 3E had evil deities in the core rules. I'm not sure where the "pushing for more evil in the core" comes from.

I said it was a feeling. We're all shooting in the dark here, c'mon!

Tiefling as a core race (I would hope they balance it with the Aasimar, at least).

(speculation) Warlock as a core class (renamed socereror), with its heavily 'infernal' feel.

(speculation) Paladins of any extreme alignment

I agree that they need other evil gods to replace Greyhawk's, but I'm not keen on giving them names that the mundanes will recognize. "Wee Jas" is obviously fiction, "Asmodeus" is not.

 

[Numion]

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?

Yup, but my response was related to making D&D more family oriented, to which I don't think Asmodeus as god has no relation.

BTW, doesn't 'deus' mean god?

 

[delericho]

Yup, but my response was related to making D&D more family oriented, to which I don't think Asmodeus as god has no relation.

No, you're right. And I agree that family-friendly is probably the wrong direction for D&D.

BTW, doesn't 'deus' mean god?

Possibly. My Latin is extremely sparce - there may be some context that modifies it, or something.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

But what about Orcus?

He's on the cover of the Monster Manual, nimrod - what more do you want?

 

[Baby Samurai]

(speculation) Paladins of any extreme alignment

I think it been confirmed that alignment will have no mechanical affect on play.