Hulkanomicon*, because Hulk smash! Hulk destroy! Hulk has clearly delineated destruction role in new cosmology!
*Not to be confused with the Hulkhoganomicon.
My guess: We'll call it one of the best retired articles of all time. :(
I call it "history".
Retconning, gotta love it. ^_^
Besides, barring acquisition of the "true" Demonimicon (which Iggwilv would stash in a comfy place close at hand for dealing with disobedient demon lords), who is to say that the ones encountered in the Material plane before, in time-honored eldtrich tome tradition, have not been deliberately written with incomplete and flawed information ?
Now it'll probably never come out that one entry in the Demonomicon is about the demon lord Hasbro, and his loyal cult of evil spellcasters (often know as the Wizards of the Coast) :(
Now it'll probably never come out that one entry in the Demonomicon is about the demon lord Hasbro, and his loyal cult of evil spellcasters (often know as the Wizards of the Coast) :(
Score: 3, Funny
Creative Director
|
I still call it the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, and will continue to do so in the campaigns I run in which it appears. It's certianly still called the Demonomicon of Iggwilv in the upcoming online Dragon #360, which is all about Graz'zt.
It's unfortunate that the changes WotC is making in 4th Edition are rebuilding so much. I can only hope that in whatever form that Greyhawk may or may not take in the next edition of the game that these changes do not hold true, that succubi are still demons, eladrins are still chaotic good outsiders, and the Abyss is still 666 layers of chaotic evil.
I see no need to carry on the Demonomicon of Iggwilv as an in-game object (or, honestly, as a series of articles) if it doesn't continue to build upon the rich history it's already drawing from over the last 30 years of D&D. If there's a need for some sort of iconic Big Book of Evil in 4th edition that DOES speak to the new world order of the reorganized multiverse, it should be something equally new. Retconning something like the Demonomicon of Iggwilv so that it functions in the new setup and is treated as if it were always that way would be, in my opinion, foolish and disrespectful of Gygax's original vision for the book.
...and the Abyss is still 666 layers of chaotic evil...Not to be a spoil-sport, but isn't it the Infinite Layers of the Abyss?
It's only infinite from a certain point of view. ;) I always thought the "infinite" part was just a reference to the endless tides of demons.
If there's a need for some sort of iconic Big Book of Evil in 4th edition that DOES speak to the new world order of the reorganized multiverse, it should be something equally new. Retconning something like the Demonomicon of Iggwilv so that it functions in the new setup and is treated as if it were always that way would be, in my opinion, foolish and disrespectful of Gygax's original vision for the book.
That would be along the vein the Lizards seem to be proposing as a general principle regarding 4e: a widespread 'retconning' of the game's metastory as a whole.
However, us malevolent GMs have no qualms whatsoever about manipulating the flavor text and fluff to our advantage and purposes.
Personally, I always regarded the Demonimicon along the lines of the eldritch tomes of CoC (especially the Necronomicon of that system): dangerous to the foolish (or most everyone for that matter), with the original tome being the most dangerous and the most 'powerful', with numerous 'lesser spawn' descending from it through the ages.
I still call it the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, and will continue to do so in the campaigns I run in which it appears. It's certianly still called the Demonomicon of Iggwilv in the upcoming online Dragon #360, which is all about Graz'zt.
It's unfortunate that the changes WotC is making in 4th Edition are rebuilding so much. I can only hope that in whatever form that Greyhawk may or may not take in the next edition of the game that these changes do not hold true, that succubi are still demons, eladrins are still chaotic good outsiders, and the Abyss is still 666 layers of chaotic evil.
I see no need to carry on the Demonomicon of Iggwilv as an in-game object (or, honestly, as a series of articles) if it doesn't continue to build upon the rich history it's already drawing from over the last 30 years of D&D. If there's a need for some sort of iconic Big Book of Evil in 4th edition that DOES speak to the new world order of the reorganized multiverse, it should be something equally new. Retconning something like the Demonomicon of Iggwilv so that it functions in the new setup and is treated as if it were always that way would be, in my opinion, foolish and disrespectful of Gygax's original vision for the book.
What an absolute ffing waste to all your hard work, James. The Demonomicon was my favorite article series about D&D and to see that it's likely we're gonna lose out is seriously depressing. Thanks for the great work in any case though...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If the Abyss were truely infinite, then it would encompass all possibilty. Plus, the number 666 has more flavor than the word Infinite.
Nah. The negative integers are truely infinite, but do not encompass the positive integers or any non-integers. The numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite as well.
|
Nah. The negative integers are truely infinite, but do not encompass the positive integers or any non-integers. The numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite as well.
If the Abyss were truely infinite, then it would encompass all possibilty. Plus, the number 666 has more flavor than the word Infinite.
Don't make me conjure the Yellowdingo™
Also, just in case anyone is keeping score, in 1st edition, the Abyss had a distinct 666 layers. None of the 'Infinite' junk. That didn't come up until 2nd edition. Bear in mind, that 2nd also required that Demons and Devils have the ol' name change to Tanar'ri and Baatezu. Mainly because TSR was trying to avoid more bad publicity. I guess they thought defending their position when any weirdo could pick up a MM and say
"SEE! There are Demons and Devils in here!"
*to sidekick* "Fetch me my copy of Malleus Maleficarum! We have Satanists to Burn.."
Note that this post is not meant to be inflamatory (except in the sense implied in the example speech above). This is just an example of the way people overreacted about D&D in the old days. D&D and playing Black Sabbath records backwards.
|
|
Also, just in case anyone is keeping score, in 1st edition, the Abyss had a distinct 666 layers. None of the 'Infinite' junk. That didn't come up until 2nd edition. Bear in mind, that 2nd also required that Demons and Devils have the ol' name change to Tanar'ri and Baatezu. Mainly because TSR was trying to avoid more bad publicity. I guess they thought defending their position when any weirdo could pick up a MM and say
"SEE! There are Demons and Devils in here!"
*to sidekick* "Fetch me my copy of Malleus Maleficarum! We have Satanists to Burn.."Note that this post is not meant to be inflamatory (except in the sense implied in the example speech above). This is just an example of the way people overreacted about D&D in the old days. D&D and playing Black Sabbath records backwards.
I think it turned out pretty good, the names change that is. Tanar'ri and Baatezu made demons and devils more complex and interesting to me.
I wasn't meaning to imply that I might be bashing the change. I however don't particularly care for the reasons that precipitated the change.
Sometimes however, the greatest accomplishments come from adversity, and yes Andrew I agree with you. While nasty 1st edition demons and devils really didn't have any depth.
I don't know if I would attribute the change in the way they were handled simply to the name change, but I think the name change certainly made people who were playing, running and designing the game start really thinking about what made Tanar'ri Demons and what made Baatezu Devils, aside from their alignments, their only real defining characteristics in 1st edition.
I wasn't meaning to imply that I might be bashing the change. I however don't particularly care for the reasons that precipitated the change.
Sometimes however, the greatest accomplishments come from adversity, and yes Andrew I agree with you. While nasty 1st edition demons and devils really didn't have any depth.I don't know if I would attribute the change in the way they were handled simply to the name change, but I think the name change certainly made people who were playing, running and designing the game start really thinking about what made Tanar'ri Demons and what made Baatezu Devils, aside from their alignments, their only real defining characteristics in 1st edition.
All that having been said, I do with the Ancient Baatorans had gotten some love in the Fiendish Codex II.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yeah, we had some enticing mention of them elsewhere (Fiendish Codex 1 was it?) and then they were ignored in FCII.
All that having been said, I do with the Ancient Baatorans had gotten some love in the Fiendish Codex II.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that FC II was garbage. No non-baatezu devils at all, a bad case of "devilz rulz", and several mechanics in it that flat out do not work. Two of the more egregious examples are the corruption mechanics and the torture mechanics. If I'm recalling correctly, the amount of pain caused by the torture does nothing to help the efficacy, and casting 12 summon monster spells for LE creatures condemns you to hell forever.
Given those who authored the 2nd FC, I am not terribly surprised about the lack of attention to the older 'canon'. Not a slam on the authors, just they are not among the more 'seasoned veterans' of WoTC's writers.
But I have FC 1, which has all the beasties that matter. ^_^
several mechanics in it that flat out do not work. Two of the more egregious examples are the corruption mechanics and the torture mechanics. If I'm recalling correctly, the amount of pain caused by the torture does nothing to help the efficacy, and casting 12 summon monster spells for LE creatures condemns you to hell forever.
Think this was BoVD. I have FCII and it definitely doesn't have these in it. There are actually some things I like in FCII, though I haven't playtested them yet.
It will be renamed the "Demonomicon of xIGGLEWILVx" due to the fact that another player named Eric Mona already chose IGGLEWILV as his log-in name...:P
|
|
I just remembered the most odd bit from my childhood...I had trouble with Iggwilv; couldn't quite get her around my tongue (not what I mean, numbskull), so I called her 'Iggly-Wiggly.' Oh well, I guess you had to be there.
EDIT: a little extra back story--My mom shopped at the local Piggly Wiggly (it's a grocery chain, not as popular as it once was), and I always called it 'Iggly-Wiggly', for reasons my mom never got...
I also called Food Lion (another grocer) 'Cibus Leo'...I thought it was quite clever, at the time.
Yes, I've always been geeky.
Plus, the number 666 has more flavor than the word Infinite.
Let me momentarily break out of the depths of 4e disillusionment and say that I respectfully disagree on that point. ;)
|
|
Regarding the Abyss not being infinite...
You could imagine a pie chart, and start slicing a piece that takes up about a 18 degree arc. Now stretch the radius of the pie out to infinity. The slice only takes up 5% of all reality, but still is infinitely large.
Anyway, yeah. 666 is a scholarly accepted number, but I think I remember reading somewhere (was it 2e?) that the Abyss is actually infinite.
I can also safely say I will likely be ignoring a lot of what 4e imagines things to be, unless the nature of the planes is hard baked into how things work.
Anyway, yeah. 666 is a scholarly accepted number, but I think I remember reading somewhere (was it 2e?) that the Abyss is actually infinite.
1e = hard limit of 666 layers.
2e = presumed infinite, with roughly 687 layers defined as distinct by the Fraternity of Order (I'd need to check Planes of Chaos to see the exact number, as that's pulled off the top of my head, but it's pretty close to the number therein). Two layers above 666 had been formally named.
3e = actually infinite, with a mention that some mortal sages believed it to have a limit of 666. The two supra-666 layers named in 2e were retconned to be below that limit [and perhaps curiously enough, I don't have a problem with this, because the way it was presented in FC:I allows open use of both an infinite Abyss and one with 666 layers. I just don't have the attachment to that piece of 1e lore to feel that a hard limit should be imposed on the plane of manifest malign chaos. But I won't begrudge using flexible language to allow that option to exist alongside an infinite option.]
Given the demon's new origin story for 4th edition, I wonder if this will even be a continuing article/series. And by their rules I think that Graz'zt, Orcus, and Malcanthet (can't be queen of the demonic succubi if there are no demonic succubi) should probably become devils, not demons.
I'm really interested to see the Orcus entry in the new MM.
I see no need to carry on the Demonomicon of Iggwilv as an in-game object (or, honestly, as a series of articles) if it doesn't continue to build upon the rich history it's already drawing from over the last 30 years of D&D. If there's a need for some sort of iconic Big Book of Evil in 4th edition that DOES speak to the new world order of the reorganized multiverse, it should be something equally new. Retconning something like the Demonomicon of Iggwilv so that it functions in the new setup and is treated as if it were always that way would be, in my opinion, foolish and disrespectful of Gygax's original vision for the book.Is this to say that you will not be penning any "Demonomicon of Iggwilv" entries once the switch is made to 4e?
It *sounds* like JJ is saying that if he can't build off the flavor he's been working on for the last few years, he'd rather not work on the Demonomicon series.
I can definitely see where he's coming from on that; I definitely wouldn't have wanted to write the Archomentals articles based on the 4E cosmology. These guys are best when fighting for control of whole planes, not their favorite parts of one big plane. ;)
Of course, digressing, it seems like the theme of this thread is about the *artifact* called the Demonomicon of Iggwilv (which, in 2E, *was* called the Fiendomicon - yuck!), rather than the *article series* called the Demonomicon of Iggwilv.