Where are the angels?


log in or register to remove this ad


Yes, the Avatar's Handbook is good too, but I wish they would release it as a PDF. :mad: It has to be one of the very few cases where they haven't done so, right? I would find it very useful. Maybe others would, as well?
 

Aus_Snow said:
Yes, the Avatar's Handbook is good too, but I wish they would release it as a PDF. :mad: It has to be one of the very few cases where they haven't done so, right? I would find it very useful. Maybe others would, as well?

Of material that hasn't been update to 3.5, I'm not aware of any that they have put up, other than Book of the Righteous (even then, Holy Warrior was ported to 3.5).

Believe me... if I could get Plot & Poison in PDF, I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat.
 

Eh. I must've been misinformed by someone somewhere along the line, it seems (always blame someone else, I always say ;) ). I was under the impression they'd released just about all the race and class books as PDFs.

I would just particularly benefit from the Avatar's in that format. With copy & paste facility. I'm creating a file on these kinds of beings for a campaign setting of mine, and while it's nice to have Anger of Angels on hand for that, that source would be neat too.

Maybe if enough people requested. . . does that kind of thing ever work? And does it cost a significant amount to simply release a PDF, in the first place?
 

All three devas, as well as solars and planetars, were in 1st edition, but I don't know that it's fair to say there was no political correctness in those days. After all, there was a reason they used Asmodeus instead of Satan, and Baalzebul instead of Beelzebub.
 

Ripzerai said:
(. . .) Baalzebul instead of Beelzebub.
Quite possibly the same thing, with different spelling. . . = Lord of the High Place(s), or something - I think. Ba'al means 'lord', almost certainly.

Asmodeus too, is from religious texts - the Book of Tobit, apparently (among other, perhaps). Again, many spellings later. . .
 


Aus_Snow said:
Quite possibly the same thing, with different spelling. . . = Lord of the High Place(s), or something - I think. Ba'al means 'lord', almost certainly.

Asmodeus too, is from religious texts - the Book of Tobit, apparently (among other, perhaps). Again, many spellings later. . .

Oh, I'm not saying they're not the names of real demons - of course they are. I'm just saying that they used names that weren't so loaded as "Satan" and "Beelzebub." Particularly in the first Monster Manual: Asmodeus, Baalzebul, Geryon, and Dispater aren't as integral to the Christian cosmology as other demons they might have chosen. Geryon is taken from Dante, who took him from Greek myth. Dispater wasn't a demon at all, just another name for Hades, and was only chosen because his city, Dis, was such an important part of Dante's Inferno. And then, of course, there's Tiamat from Babylonian myth.

Asmodeus was king of the demons in Kabbalistic lore, but he's certainly a less recognizable demon king than Satan or Lucifer. Baalzebul is a reconstruction of what might have been the earlier name for Beelzebub in pre-Biblical times.

For whatever reason, Gygax was deliberately trying to make his devils less overtly Biblical than he might otherwise have done. Perhaps he just wanted them to fit better in a polytheistic setting.

Now, in the MMII we got some more famous demons - Belial, Mephistopheles, and Mammon. Belial and Mammon were in Milton (as were Orcus and Demogorgon), and Mephistopheles is from Marlowe and Goethe. So he certainly wasn't trying as hard to be pre-Christian in the MMII as he was in the MMI.
 

Ah, looks like I wasn't telling you anything you didn't well and truly know already. :)

It's encouraging to see others with interest in these fields. I find them fascinating, though I'm a pretty poor student at this stage.
 

Remove ads

Top