Want info on Hell and devils prior to 2e meddling.

[Grazzt]

As far as I recall, Hades has never been detailed in Dragon. I published some of my Hades ideas for Greyhawk at Canonfire, if you're interested:

[b]http://www.canonfire.com/html/article.php?sid=39&mode=thread&order=0[/b]

Greenwood's articles were in 76 and 77, with a follow-up in 91. EGG published extensive preview info on the MM2 devils around Dragons 75/76, too.

Allan.
---
grodog@pacbell.net
http://www.rpg.net/ehp/imrryr/greyhawk.html

You were close.... The articles actually appear in Dragon #75 and Dragon #76. You are correct that the follow-up is in #91. I have all three on my desk in front of me as we speak......working up some more stuff for the CC site.


Scott
The Creature Catalog
http://www.enworld.org/cc

Content Editor
Necromancer Games
http://www.necromancergames.com

 

[Henry]

You were close.... The articles actually appear in Dragon #75 and Dragon #76. You are correct that the follow-up is in #101. I have all three on my desk in front of me as we speak......working up some more stuff for the CC site.

I knew #101 stuck in my head for some reason - thanks, Scott!

 

[Grazzt]

That should be #91 for the follow-up. I quoted it correctly, just typed it wrong.


Fixed in my original post.

 

[uv23]

I don't know what people have against the Blood War. I think its a great concept.

 

[PaulKemp]

Did they put out any kinds of sourcebooks with the 1e setup of demons & devils? I don't much care for the setup in 2e Guide to Hell and 3e Manual of the Planes. I don't have Asmodeus as an ubergod or anything more than the most powerful of the devil race. This whole bloodwar stuff and all the planescape influenced stuff isn't what I'm looking for. Any help?

I also recall a most excellent article that appeared in an early Dragon entitled "The Politics of Hell." It did not have game stats for any of the arch-devils (as those were in the 1ed MM anyway) except for Satan. Very cool article though. It also appeared in the first "Best of Dragon," the one with the green cover.

Paul

 

[Psion]

I don't know what people have against the Blood War. I think its a great concept.

I think it is a fine concept.

One thing I didn't like (and this is coming from a PS fan) is the implication that they tried to tack onto it: that fiends would have no interest in the prime.

Fiends have been a longstanding source of villany on my game world. I wouldn't stop making the prime a major point of importance to fiends as some PS stuff has implied. If there is one thing that bugs me about PS, it is thus.

 

[Information]

I don't know what people have against the Blood War. I think its a great concept.

Well, this issue never comes in my campaign, as I only have one major fiendish race: Demons (which aren't the ones in the Monster Manual but were originally detailed in the Bard Games sourcebook, The Compleat Spellcaster). No touchy demon/devil distinction, and no worries about correcting my players when they claim they've "killed a Demon from Hell".

 

[Information]

One thing I didn't like (and this is coming from a PS fan) is the implication that they tried to tack onto it: that fiends would have no interest in the prime.

One among many reasons I didn't like the PS concept.

"Fiends" in my campaign have their interests inextricably woven with that of the Prime Material. Demonic infestation is pervasive, but not in the "dungeon-scouring devil" manner, but rather as a negative force corrupting and gnawing away at society (sort of like fantasy game role-players).

 

[Zappo]

I don't know what people have against the Blood War. I think its a great concept.

They think that extreme Chaotic Evil and extreme Lawful Evil are almost the same thing and will certainly cooperate against good. They don't think about what logically happens when you have two powerful empires with radically different political views, both convinced that they are the supreme race in the multiverse, and both having no objections at all to using violence to solve disputes.

At least, that's the impression I've got from previous arguments on the topic.

 

[Information]

My impression would be that co-existent realms with opposite conceptions of the extent to which "order" or "law" are desirable need not be in conflict.

A lawful evil barony might go to war with its chaotic evil orc-dominated neighbor, not because the other is "chaotic" but because one desires territory that the other has. In the case of devils/baatezu and demons/tanar'ri, such a case is nonexistent. Being removed by three infinite planes, I don't see how their territorial aims could come into conflict.

On the other hand, demons and devils are, in large part, defined in terms adherence to a specific alignment (a major component in distinguishing the two). But this, in and of itself, doesn't necessitate the sort of genocidal hatred that they purportedly have for each other. If it were the case, wouldn't there be a conflict between Nirvana and Limbo even more severe, without any conception of good or evil to illuminate the relationship?

Perhaps it could be called the "Flood War", with raging waves of Slaadi pitted against tides of Formians.