Books for Demons, Devils and Dragons etc.

I would like to see a complete Demonomicon produced as well as a Complete book defining Devils and any other race deemed fit to have their own book or books as the case maybe this last one for Dragons Chromatic and Metalic. Now by Complete I mean it will contain in depth (ala 2nd ed Monsterous Manual Style)  information on every member of the race that has seen print over the years this includes Gods and Lords and Princes and all the Least, Lesser, Greater, True and whatever else is lurking out their including offspring like Dragonborn or the true and original Tieflings of 2nd ed fame.
They can be ineresting material, though I hope monster manual is gong to give detailed and complete descriptions as the old 2nd edition one.
I heartilly agree, 3.5 and 4th ed Monster Manuals have been really lean on information on monsters as compared to 2nd Ed, with any luck this issue will be addressed and we will see a throw back to 2nd Ed with regards to indepth monster descriptions
I would like a book with nothing but Giants.
I would like a book with nothing but Giants.

I would buy into that too as giants are a race deserving their own book
Not sure I would buy into this idea. The shear number some of these subjects breed in regard to ideas is endless. I think I'd prefer a book detailing important Devils/Demons/Dragons/etc. rather than each and every type out there of these creatures.

Of course, that just could be me not wanting to pay 70$ for a 20 lbs book XD
Not sure I would buy into this idea. The shear number some of these subjects breed in regard to ideas is endless. I think I'd prefer a book detailing important Devils/Demons/Dragons/etc. rather than each and every type out there of these creatures.

Of course, that just could be me not wanting to pay 70$ for a 20 lbs book XD

The type of book I propose, in the case of demons would be about the size of a Monster Manual when completely kitted out with the types of Demons, Demon Lords, Princes and Gods as well as other standard information and i would say should cost about the same

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.

Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.



Do we have a problem here sir?

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.




Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I heartilly agree, 3.5 and 4th ed Monster Manuals have been really lean on information on monsters as compared to 2nd Ed, with any luck this issue will be addressed and we will see a throw back to 2nd Ed with regards to indepth monster descriptions



Some of us prefer the minimalist approach, as it makes it easier to insert, delete, or adjust the material as needed for our personal preferences and game worlds.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.




Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?




It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.

D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.

By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.




Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?




It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.

D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.

By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.

Well said my learned friend! or is that fiend?
I'm in favor of books on demons, devils, and fiends, but there are some things that I really want to see in one to make it worth buying (to me).

1) Rules for possession and exorcism.
2) Rules for Faustian deals.
3) Playable Demon races.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Why don't any of the evil gods take over 9 hells. Sme live there but pay homage to azmod.
Why don't any of the evil gods take over 9 hells. Sme live there but pay homage to azmod.



In the 1e/2e/3e 9 Hells, gods generally stayed out of fiendish politics and the Blood War for several reasons. One, the few times that they directly intervened in the Blood War -absolutely nothing good came of it-, and it was hinted that the fiends might have engaged in wholesale genocide on the gods' worshippers, bleeding them of power till they withdrew.

It was also stated that archfiends were more or less their layer of their plane and the layer of the plane was them, giving them a certain transcendant quality that gods lacked (albeit restricted to their native plane). In one case, Set of the Egyptian pantheon came into conflict with Prince Levistus the Lord of Stygia in Hell, and by force of will, Levistus actually causes a contraction of Set's divine domain (2e).

Other archfiends appear able to simply ignore deific power when on their home plane, even within those deities' divine domains, with one example being the archdemon Pale Night able to teleport within Lolth's divine domain, in the presence of Lolth's aspect who seemed confused and horrified since Lolth had previously restricted teleportation ability within that portion of her domain (3.5).

Call it home field advantage, call it archfiend status being something far more primal in nature than evil gods, but whatever the reason, the fiends have rarely been subserviant to gods except when it suits them to be so, and gods have carefully avoided meddling in fiendish affairs. The particulars have varied slightly over the years and as far as I know, since I only considered 1e/2e/3e above, 4e doesn't really address the concept at all so I can't speak as to it.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
There was also an allusion toward the end of 3.5 that Asmodeus may be an Uber-deity on the same level as Ao (FR), or better. In any case, I am in favour of monster supplements particularly if they do an environment series. Why can't I get some aquatic creatures up in here?
There was also an allusion toward the end of 3.5 that Asmodeus may be an Uber-deity on the same level as Ao (FR), or better. In any case, I am in favour of monster supplements particularly if they do an environment series. Why can't I get some aquatic creatures up in here?



It originally came from a late 2e book 'Guide to Hell', and while that particular notion conflicted quite heavily with a bunch of detailed stuff on the history of the 9 Hells before and since, they gave it a nod as a rumor/legend in the 3e MotP in case anyone wanted to run with it.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
Why is demogorgon looking different mm2 cover and in book of vile darkness
Why is demogorgon looking different mm2 cover and in book of vile darkness

artistic licence
That evil artistic monster.
Anyway the new one sucks. Mpo

but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

And then along came Dragon Magazine and did by presenting their true forms and even a strict CR limit of (I think) 36 for the reigning prince of demons true form.

There was also an allusion toward the end of 3.5 that Asmodeus may be an Uber-deity on the same level as Ao (FR), or better. In any case, I am in favour of monster supplements particularly if they do an environment series. Why can't I get some aquatic creatures up in here?



It originally came from a late 2e book 'Guide to Hell', and while that particular notion conflicted quite heavily with a bunch of detailed stuff on the history of the 9 Hells before and since, they gave it a nod as a rumor/legend in the 3e MotP in case anyone wanted to run with it.

Even while GtH clearly stated that he was a greater deity.

 

In one case, Set of the Egyptian pantheon came into conflict with Prince Levistus the Lord of Stygia in Hell, and by force of will, Levistus actually causes a contraction of Set's divine domain (2e).

Yet the conflict was far from being resolved and the victor uncertain.

 

Other archfiends appear able to simply ignore deific power when on their home plane, even within those deities' divine domains, with one example being the archdemon Pale Night able to teleport within Lolth's divine domain, in the presence of Lolth's aspect who seemed confused and horrified since Lolth had previously restricted teleportation ability within that portion of her domain (3.5).

Which AFAIK is the only example and that it confused and horrified the aspect isn't written there. And the whole adventure was crap anyway, all depends on the PCs killing a certain low-level aspect on Lolth on her home realm to prevent it from reading something while the real full-powered Lolth is basically just sitting next door and could take over her aspect's role with ease.

"Oh, you slew my envoy aspect? Oh well *DIE* and now I just read it myself"


but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

And then came Dragon Magazine and did by presenting their true forms and even a strict CR limit of (I think) 36 for the reigning prince of demons true form.


Quite, including the Apocrypha in the last print issue. 

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.




Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?




It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.

D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.

By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.



I suppose.  I prefer to use those gods and godlike beings as engame beings.  Deicide, or the equivalent, is my favorite, even only way to end a campaign.  And I prefer that the game designers creat the stats for me.  Trying to come up with them is, to say the least, problematic.  I want to challenge the PCs, not assured oblivion or easy as pie.  The designers know better than me what to do with the numbers for that.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).

:D


Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.




Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?




It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.

D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).

As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.

By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.



I suppose.  I prefer to use those gods and godlike beings as engame beings.  Deicide, or the equivalent, is my favorite, even only way to end a campaign.  And I prefer that the game designers creat the stats for me.  Trying to come up with them is, to say the least, problematic.  I want to challenge the PCs, not assured oblivion or easy as pie.  The designers know better than me what to do with the numbers for that.





Personally, I'd rather get something that gave me examples and a toolkit for making my own, the Elder Evils book offered some of that back in 3.5 and I used it once or twice during hte course of a few of my games.
Sign In to post comments