The Book of Vile Darkness - it is mine, review within

[Celebrim]

It seems to me that there is a lot of complaining going on about really trivial things. If the arch-fiends were presented as CR 40 foes, then there stats would merely be an abstraction intended to impress people who have yet to realize that the DM can make foes of any CR quite readily. 'Ewww wow, look how tough Orcus is.', is a state of a very limited imagination, because for any given monster A with finite stats you can always propose monster B that is much tougher and it is entirely subjective when tough becomes too tough and someone has started bing cheesy.

How many games out there actually need CR 40 villians? And, if they are to be CR 40 villians, surely they need to be created with Epic Feats and the like which require that the reader have the ELH in order to understand what he reads.

I think it is better that the arch-fiends are presented as foes that are not so far outside the needs of most campaigns that the majority of campaigns which actually use them are poorly run Monte Haul types. That doesn't do the reputation of the Arch-Fiends any favors either, for those of you who seem to place the reputation of the various demons and devils as kick-butt admirable worshipable beings as highest priorities.

It is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that an arch-fiend be no personally tougher than a Solar. Certainly, in thier original conception, Solars were no more common than arch-fiends, and can be seen as thier opposing force. And in any event, for the rare few that feel the need for CR 40, or CR 60, or CR 100 (or whatever) Asmodeous for whatever reason (look how tough my arch-fiends are! my epic level NPC's are bigger than your epic level NPC's!) you can certainly advance them as easily as you advance any other monster.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

...I would expect people to deride me for saying that.

I think most poeple would just take it as your opinoin and treat it as such. But after the way you got worked up in the anti-BOVD threads I should have expected this.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Henry!

I am still unclear why one person should think Grazz't to be any greater or weaker in power than any other demon lord or devil prince.

You're joking right!?!?

Graz'zt IS the big boy on the block!

In all the official stuff from years gone by, Grazz't was not as powerful as Demogorgon,

Lets get the 1st Ed. stats up here right now and lets throw down monkey boy!

I'll slice that maroon baboon to peices!

and certainly was about as powerful as Fraz-Urb Luu (that demon-baboon prince)

That winged king-kong wannabe is not a top tier demon monarch - close, but no cigar.

Grazz't was not written as insanely physically powerful; Grazz't was instead a prince of deception.

Don't be quoting any of that 2nd Ed. jive y'hear!

Who were the insanely powerful ones? Orcus and Demogorgon.

...and Graz'zt...and Zuggtmoy.

Off the top of my head from Graz'zt's Monster Manual II (1st Ed.) entry:

"...a dedicated foe of both Demogorgon and Orcus..."

It does not read '...cowers behind his lamia and succubi when Orcus and Demogorgon call him out to play...'

These two were to each other what Asmodeus and Mephistopheles were to each other - the head Bottom-Feeders in the Pond of Evil.

I haven't heard this much jive since National Lampoons Airplane.

In Monster Manual 2 (1st Ed.) Graz'zt is valued as worth more XP than any other Demon Prince/Arch-Devil in that book except Pazuzu (the enigmatic proto-demon)!

That means more than Mephistopheles and more than Fraz-Urb'luu and practically double both Belial and Mammon!

If we compare things to the 1st ed. XP values then Baalzebul and Orcus are roughly comparable to Graz'zt with Demogorgon and Asmodeus somewhat out in front - however those figures don't seem consistent with the stats since they have Juiblex equal to Mephistopheles and Yeenoghu surpassing him. As such its a safe bet the Monster Manual 1 XP totals for unique beings (given in the Dungeon Masters Guide at the time) are about 10,000 XP heavy.

As such the most powerful should be Demogorgon; Asmodeus; Graz'zt and Pazuzu.

Followed by Orcus; Baalzebul; Mephistopheles and Fraz-Urb'luu.

The use of one product's rules in another is a different discussion entirely - suffice it to say that WotC's official stance is to NEVER assume that a gamer has one certain product, and do not make content from another book dependent on content the gamer may not have. I for one prefer this policy, though I understand others do not. In my opinion, it is far better to add Epic levels or Divine ranks to the demons, than to assume that all gamers want it that way.

Yet Call of Cthulhu D20 has divine power entities without needing Deities & Demigods or the Epic Level Handbook.

This is a major sticking point: WotC's and Monte Cook's vision is one of many; there are other ways to portray the Demon Princes and Devils, and not all people will be satisfied with the vision that WotC presents..

Low power is one thing; relative power is quite another.

 

[Grazzt]

Its so hard for you to understand, because you are FLAT-OUT WRONG.

We are discussing the BoVD, and what makes it good, and what makes it bad. It is bad that they did not include specific stats for divine versions of the archfiends.

Not bad at all. Look in DDG. Look in Defenders of the Faith. It explicity states the the devils and demon princes/lords are NOT gods. Period. This is core stuff.

I know that Orcus and some of the others are gods in FR (mentioned in the FR god book), but FR isn't core. According to the core rules, as I said, the devils and demons are not divine beings. Therefore, why would WotC bother wasting time and space to stat them as divine beings when they are not divine at all (in the Core rules)?

 

[RobNJ]

Its so hard for you to understand, because you are FLAT-OUT WRONG.

This doesn't have much to do with the quote you replied to.

We are discussing the BoVD, and what makes it good, and what makes it bad. It is bad that they did not include specific stats for divine versions of the archfiends.

Correction: you don't like that they didn't include specific stats for divine versions of the archfiends. If archfiends were improperly balanced for their alleged CRs, or if there was a missing page for one of the archfiends, etc., those would be bad. As it stands what we're left with is, "This is the way I want it, and it's not that way, so I'm going to stamp my feat and scream like a 2 year old."

WOTC did fail by not making a version of the archfiends that are ELH worthy.

No they did not fail. If they intended to make a version of the archfiends that were ELH worthy, and the fiends presented weren't, then they would have failed. Since that was not their intent, and since they didn't attempt to do it, they can't be said to have failed.

I have never tried to box professionally. Does that mean I lost a lot of boxing matches?

The book would have greater value if the archfiends worked for both normal campaigns and ELH.

Perhaps. Or perhaps doing so would've resulted in something else being pushed out of the book. Or perhaps lots of people would be here, complaining about how you "have to" buy the ELH to use the BoVD. Correction: would be. Not perhaps.

Now that is EASY to understand, and everyone understands it.

Except everyone doesn't agree with you. Surely that belies this point.

Despite my being correct here, I wouldn't say that everyone understands it. For example: you--clearly--do not.

 

[RobNJ]

Rob, you are always one step ahead of me and always take the words right out of my mouth.

Why thank you, sir, but I think the points you made were vital as well. That's not just pablum, either.

 

[RobNJ]

I think most poeple would just take it as your opinoin and treat it as such.

If I had said that they screwed up by not publishing a book to my particular designs? Hell, they ought to deride me for it. It's a laughable position.

But after the way you got worked up in the anti-BOVD threads I should have expected this.

Perhaps you'd like to back up this poorly excecuted flame with a specific explanation of what you mean?

 

[kenjib]

Let's take this back a bit: do you think there's a way for Grazz'zt to be challenging to both 20th level characters and 32nd level characters?

I think the answer is obviously not.

So the only thing I can guess is that you're advocating that they rewrite the Epic Level Handbook or the core rules to deal with this one complaint?

Actually, all WotC needs to do is put out a web enhancement for the Epic Level Handbook with these guys statted somewhere around CR 50 and call it a day. I think it's a good idea, myself. I think the lower CR demon/devil lords are very useful, as would be the proposed higher level ones. Why not have two stat sets?

 

[The Serge]

Nothing, as long as you cop to its being about your particular tastes, rather than some error with the game. There's a vast chasm of difference between the two. I submit that your arguments on this thread so far--until they were challenged--focused on an objective failure of the book rather than your own preferences. Or you attempted to mask your preferences as absolute failings in the book.

I find expecting broadcast material to conform to your preferences (rather than wishing it had in a public forum) to be problematic, to put it mildly.

Well, I fully admit that my method of expressing myself assumes that I'm right but reasonable. I don't apologize for that, but I can see that as being the inference people receive.

However, I do believe that WotC is not being consisent in the manner in which these characters have been handled. There really is no way around that. If Lolth is a goddess, then these characters should be as well. And, I also believe that on its face, they are not high level enough because ELH and DDG were both taken into accoun in creating their stats (along with other elements of the book). They have lower CRs than Behemoths! It doesn't add up. I think this is an objective failure of the book that in this case also parallels with my personal preferences (as opposed to my position on DDG, in which I disagreed with the decision to stat gods, but found the end result satisfactory). Believe me, I am not going to mask anything when it comes to expressing my opinion.

And, I never said the book was an absolute failure. I've said numerous times that I respect what Monte Cook has produced, and usually like it as well. I just don't agree with this issue... one that is of importance to me.

 

[Psion]

Krusty wrote:
I agree that the deity stats in D&Dg were badly done.

I don't think they are badly done so much as useless. If you ever need to go toe to toe with a deity, you sure can use those stats. But not many people do so enough to make it worthwhile to have a "deity monster manual."

The Serge wrote
Yes, it is a matter of "making sense" when one considers the fact that Asmodeus is a planar ruler. As a planar ruler, I would expect him to be of greater power than a demigod, lesser god, or intermediate god.

What you would "expect" is not the determiner of what "makes sense". There is no factor anywhere other than your personal preference that obligates planar rulers to be bona fide deities.

No, they are not being consistent. If they were, Lolth should have been a Demon Prince along with Demogorgon and Orcus orDemogorgon and Orcus should be Lesser or Intermediate gods with Lolth

Wrong. That is not inconsistant within the scope of 3e. They decided to cleft demons from deities a long time ago and stuck with that decision. Again, not a decision I agree with, but they are applying it consistantly.

"The way things were in 2e" is not a determiner of what makes sense. It's just a determiner of the way things were in 2e.