Lords of Hell - how do you prefer them?

[ExLibrisMortis]

In regards to the topic, I prefer stories where the villains are relatable, and demons and devils rarely succeed in fulfilling this because they lack so many things that are intrinsic to other living things. They don't eat, they don't sleep, they don't reproduce, and they are immortal. They don't have any desires beyond "do the evulz!"

In D&D, there are actually several generations of demons, and they vary with respect to their humanity.

The first generation, the obyriths, are the "original" demons, spawned from the Abyss directly, and they are (or were) entirely inhuman. Older demon lords tend to be obyriths, like Dagon, Pazuzu, and Obox-ob.
The second generation, the tanar'ri, was shaped by the obyrith, originally formed from humanoid souls sent to the Abyss after death. These are typically fairly humanoid, if the sibriexes didn't mess up too badly, and through their humanoid 'ancestry', they understand humanoids better and have humanoid sensibilities (they eat, have sex, use drugs, and so on). Succubi, for example, are created/arise primarily from (the evil side of) humanoid lust. Demogorgon, Graz'zt and Orcus are tanar'ri (Demogorgon is, in fact, the very first tanar'ri, if I recall my chronology correctly).
The third generation, the loumara, are incorporeal posessor demons, and relatively new. They are formed from the dreams of dead gods.


It's nice that 3.5 gives you a choice: if you want more of a Lovecraftian "ancient and utterly inhuman with lots of tentacles" feel, obyriths are the demons to go for. If you want vaguely humanoid demons with (twisted/corrupted) humanoid drives, go with tanar'ri. If you want demons that infiltrate society wearing humanoid bodies, go with loumara.

[Mr Beer]

Lords of Hell - how do you prefer them?

Diabolical, natch

[Dragonexx]

I never saw a reason why there needed to be a difference between gods and demon lords/archdevils/celestial paragons. Having them all be on the same level (levels 21-25 to be specific) works so much better.

[oudeis]

In a non-monotheistic setting, the Lords of Hell are gods, or they should be. True gods, not the weak-kneed impostors who need worship to exist. They are as above human considerations as they are indifferent to human existence. The concept of the 'man of wealth and taste' looking to cut a deal has been done to death, as is the idea that the human soul is the most precious thing in the multiverse. This applies to good powers as well as evil.

Also, if you want the denizens of the outer planes to intimidate players, get rid of the stereotypical 'fiendish creature' motifs: red hues, flames, scales, fangs, horns, etc. They aren't intimidating. Show me a creature with impressive horns and I'll show you a whole party of scalphunters looking to turn its head into a helmet.

[GreatWyrmGold]

True gods, not the weak-kneed impostors who need worship to exist. They are as above human considerations as they are indifferent to human existence.

...unlike basically every mythological god. Monotheistic mythologies aside, gods tend to be characterized as having human flaws, desiring human worship for one reason or another (often, though not always, existential), and have to worry about some of the same things as humans (albeit on larger scales). When your definition of "god" leaves out most gods that people believe in, you might want to adjust your definition.

...But yeah, the division between demon lord and minor CE deity is more arbitrary than it needs to be. Which is why I don't understand why warlocks are arcane casters.

[supergoji18]

...unlike basically every mythological god. Monotheistic mythologies aside, gods tend to be characterized as having human flaws, desiring human worship for one reason or another (often, though not always, existential), and have to worry about some of the same things as humans (albeit on larger scales). When your definition of "god" leaves out most gods that people believe in, you might want to adjust your definition.

I agree with this except for the part about desire for human worship for existential reasons claim. I can't think of a single real world religion in which worship is needed for a got to exist. There are creatures that need this, but they are not gods they are monsters. Also, in my experience, it is the monotheistic gods that tend to demand the most worship. Pantheistic gods just don't take kindly to disrespect or hubris.

[oudeis]

...unlike basically every mythological god. Monotheistic mythologies aside, gods tend to be characterized as having human flaws, desiring human worship for one reason or another (often, though not always, existential), and have to worry about some of the same things as humans (albeit on larger scales). When your definition of "god" leaves out most gods that people believe in, you might want to adjust your definition.

Could you provide some citations for this? This runs contradictory to my understanding of most practices, wherein it's human beings who need the gods (or at least some measure of their good will).

[Spore]

Also, if you want the denizens of the outer planes to intimidate players, get rid of the stereotypical 'fiendish creature' motifs: red hues, flames, scales, fangs, horns, etc. They aren't intimidating. Show me a creature with impressive horns and I'll show you a whole party of scalphunters looking to turn its head into a helmet.

I kind of agree. This is really tangential but I love the way Elder Scrolls does their gods/aedra versus their demons/devils/daedra lords

Just a short head's up for people who don't know TES. Aedra are ethereal, detached from their creation, they represent constancy. Daedra are heavily involved in mortal affairs, they represent change. Daedra tend towards evil, and Aedra tend towards...well, good to neutral.

Daedra range from stereotypical "demon lord of conquest who just wants to get a grip on the mortal plane" over "somewhat good aligned undead slayer" or "king/queen of cannibals" down to "prince of madness". And Sheogorath as the prince is madness comes on as funny and silly and random at the start but he quickly becomes very dangerous despite is mostly human form. Basically an old man in a jester garb with cat eyes, his randomness is what makes him dangerous. He might find you funny one moment, and is infuriated by your lack of creativity the other one, lobbing your head off and placing it in his salad as a "very big tomato". Daedra require attention, and intricate worship. Else you're gonna have a bad time.

But on a very basic level, aedra are not good, and daedra are not bad. They just represent change and constants. (Also there is the eternal light of magic and the hungering void of darkness but that goes too far. But these two are also universal unaligned constants.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

I never saw a reason why there needed to be a difference between gods and demon lords/archdevils/celestial paragons. Having them all be on the same level (levels 21-25 to be specific) works so much better.

It... really doesn't. The power balance/struggle between demon lords and deities is much more precarious when they don't share a power base/source. Tiamat and Bahamut may fight one another eternally, but they both receive power from dragon (well, probably kobold) worship. Asmodeus doesn't care about that--he'll gladly be forgotten, if that means people will become unashamedly LE. Different motivations encourage interesting political developments. Variety is the spice of life, and all that.

@Human(oid) souls being precious: They're not, as of 3.5. They're just the most common type of soul that isn't totally worthless. Souls, in general, serve as lower-plane currency, and the more powerful the soul, the more valuable. The "fiendish creature motif" is one of Mephistopheles' pet projects, by the way--don't insult his style.

@TES cosmology: Elder Scrolls also has the depth of a pancake (especially Sheogorath--lolrandom is not interesting). I do prefer to add a dose of "[good] is not good and [evil] is not evil" to my D&D cosmology, though.

[Dragonexx]

I'm more referring to them being on roughly the same level of power. Whether they get their strength from souls or worship (or both really) is not that relevant.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm more referring to them being on roughly the same level of power. Whether they get their strength from souls or worship (or both really) is not that relevant.

It's related, though. The ability to gain power from worship goes hand-in-hand with a significant gain in overall power, both personal and political. Orcus wants to ascend to godhood because he wants more power, for example. If everyone's on the same level, archfiends and paragons in general lose the ability to "get ahead", and most of the impact of having a divine portfolio is negated. It's more interesting to play up the complexities of godhood: it's a huge responsibility, a gaping weakness, a vast amount of power, and a tremendous amount of influence.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Could you provide some citations for this? This runs contradictory to my understanding of most practices, wherein it's human beings who need the gods (or at least some measure of their good will).

Sure.
The best known is probably the Aztec sun god whose name I can't spell, who needs a reasonably constant supply of blood sacrifices to avoid being killed by his brothers and sister. The Epic of Giglamesh refers to gods crowding around a sacrifice when most of humanity is destroyed, heavily implying that they need such sacrifices. At least one version of the Egyptian myth about Sekhmet's origin says that Ra lost his divine powers (though admittedly not his life) when he lost humanity's respect and worship. I've also seen mentions of such beliefs being common in animistic, pantheist, and polytheist belief systems worldwide, from Shinto to vodoun to neo-paganism, but I haven't looked into it enough to have any details.
Three other points worth noting: Gods needing humans is not mutually exclusive with humans needing gods, and there are some religious texts which make a much bigger deal out of their gods not needing worship/sacrifice to survive than you would expect if there weren't other local belief systems where they did. Finally, it's exceedingly common for people to believe that this is true of gods they don't worship, but I'm not sure if that counts or not so I didn't want to list all those examples.

It's related, though.

In a Watsonian sense, maybe, but why should the world designer feel tethered by that? Just because gods get power from worshipers and demons get power from eating souls doesn't mean one needs to be more powerful. And in this thread, we're speaking as world designers, aren't we?

[ExLibrisMortis]

In a Watsonian sense, maybe, but why should the world designer feel tethered by that? Just because gods get power from worshipers and demons get power from eating souls doesn't mean one needs to be more powerful. And in this thread, we're speaking as world designers, aren't we?

Sure, but if there's nothing to gain from worship, why would you, being a powerful demon lord to begin with, bother with godhood at all? As a world designer, I prefer making godhood a meaningful element of the setting, and more or less the height of power (the Lady of Pain does not count); if it's not an upgrade from being a demon lord, I can't have Orcus striving to become Orcus (divine rank 1), which is a fairly crucial part of his persona.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Sure, but if there's nothing to gain from worship, why would you, being a powerful demon lord to begin with, bother with godhood at all? As a world designer, I prefer making godhood a meaningful element of the setting, and more or less the height of power (the Lady of Pain does not count); if it's not an upgrade from being a demon lord, I can't have Orcus striving to become Orcus (divine rank 1), which is a fairly crucial part of his persona.

First off, I tend to think of gods as being less like unstoppable forces of nature and more like being kings run through a metaphor machine backwards. They have immense, overwhelming power, but only because their servants give it to them. God, church, and congregation are in a big symbiotic relationship, and any one without the others would suffer. This doesn't mean they're not "a meaningful element of the setting," of course, any more than kings aren't meaningful just because they die. (Not directly relevant to the discussion, but still an interesting point.)
Second, worship doesn't have to be about getting more supernatural powers. It could be about gaining influence in the world, or some kind of legitimacy or prestige, or simply feeding one's ego. (Of course, when you're as powerful as Orcus is, even getting more power is probably about feeding one's ego as much as anything else.)
Finally...if feeding on souls gives you power, and being worshipped gives you power, wouldn't an archdemon who gained worship (or a god who ate souls) be even more powerful? Even if Orcus and Vecna were on the same level, if Orcus could get on a high higher level by securing a congregation while still eating souls, that would be plenty of motivation to do so.

[Max_Killjoy]

First off, I tend to think of gods as being less like unstoppable forces of nature and more like being kings run through a metaphor machine backwards. They have immense, overwhelming power, but only because their servants give it to them. God, church, and congregation are in a big symbiotic relationship, and any one without the others would suffer. This doesn't mean they're not "a meaningful element of the setting," of course, any more than kings aren't meaningful just because they die. (Not directly relevant to the discussion, but still an interesting point.)

Second, worship doesn't have to be about getting more supernatural powers. It could be about gaining influence in the world, or some kind of legitimacy or prestige, or simply feeding one's ego. (Of course, when you're as powerful as Orcus is, even getting more power is probably about feeding one's ego as much as anything else.)

One of my settings has both, depending on when in the timeline you're looking.

The current deities are post-apotheosis mortals who in part rely on the belief of mortals (just belief will do -- it's enough that people tell the stories and their legends continue and knowledge of them is passed on, they can even argue over which stories are true, etc... offerings and devotions are an added benefit) to maintain their status as actual deities.

The ancient deities they overthrew and locked away were effectively the multiple "souls" of reality itself, older than the form of reality that mortals know and understand, which is why they can't be destroyed, only contained. They can't be destroyed any more than gravity, or mass, or light, or entropy. And beyond a sort of morbid fascination, they largely didn't care about mortals any more than gravity or entropy would, and they don't inherently understand mortal concerns or limitations. To them, being worshiped was a game or a tool or an annoyance or whatever, depending on which one, but on a base level it mattered to them no more than it matters to the Planck constant or a hurricane or 679nm light.

[GreatWyrmGold]

One of my settings has both, depending on when in the timeline you're looking.

The current deities are post-apotheosis mortals who in part rely on the belief of mortals (just belief will do -- it's enough that people tell the stories and their legends continue and knowledge of them is passed on, they can even argue over which stories are true, etc... offerings and devotions are an added benefit) to maintain their status as actual deities.

The ancient deities they overthrew and locked away were effectively the multiple "souls" of reality itself, older than the form of reality that mortals know and understand, which is why they can't be destroyed, only contained. They can't be destroyed any more than gravity, or mass, or light, or entropy. And beyond a sort of morbid fascination, they largely didn't care about mortals any more than gravity or entropy would, and they don't inherently understand mortal concerns or limitations. To them, being worshiped was a game or a tool or an annoyance or whatever, depending on which one, but on a base level it mattered to them no more than it matters to the Planck constant or a hurricane or 679nm light.

So, some themes from the Cthulhu Mythos crossed with the cyclic-pantheon-overturning of classical mythology and a bit of man overcoming the "natural" order of things? Nice.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, some themes from the Cthulhu Mythos crossed with the cyclic-pantheon-overturning of classical mythology and a bit of man overcoming the "natural" order of things? Nice.

Thanks.

Throw in a little "space rock" (King Crimson, Monster Magnet, etc) for flavor, too.

[Florian]

I never saw a reason why there needed to be a difference between gods and demon lords/archdevils/celestial paragons. Having them all be on the same level (levels 21-25 to be specific) works so much better.

Pathfinder/Golarion has a pretty good reason for this difference: True divinities are fundamental cosmic forces made manifest. For example, Pharasma is not _a_ goddess of life and death, she _is_ life and death. As such, there's only one goddess of life and death, but she might be known under different names, or understood as being two different deities, depending on planet, culture and so on, but we're always talking about the same thing/entity. Thus, true divinities hold the ultimate power because they collectively are the multiverse and shape the rules and functions (and they absolutely don't need worship, are not dependent on it and so on).

Continuing that pattern, each Outer Plane has a true divinity as a representative of the fundamental concept behind it. Asmodeus is Hell, Lamashtu is the Abyss and Yog-Sothoth is the Dark Tapestry, the thing that we commonly call "space".

Really far below that are things like demon lords, archdevils, great old ones, goblin hero-deities or empyreal lords. Powerful entities, for sure (mechanically speaking, the CR 25-30 range, often also using a Mythic rank in the 8-10 range), but they´re not even on the same page as true divinities, far from it. While, say, Lamashtu represents the fundamental concept of change, mutation and monsters, Haagenti and Yamasoth are "just" really powerful outsiders that are good at creating monsters and warping flesh.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Pathfinder/Golarion has a pretty good reason for this difference: True divinities are fundamental cosmic forces made manifest.

I want you to study the difference between a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist one and determine which perspective Dragonexx's comment was written from.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I want you to study the difference between a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist one and determine which perspective Dragonexx's comment was written from.

That's not helpful. It wasn't clearly written from either perspective. We're discussing both here.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's not helpful. It wasn't clearly written from either perspective. We're discussing both here.

There are absolutely people who have been discussing both angles throughout the thread, but it seems clear to me that Dragonexx was discussing from a Watsonian Doylist perspective. Either that, or he somehow literally never read any explanation ever written for why gods and demons were different, despite being enough of a fantasy fan to frequent a board devoted about 50/50 to a fantasy TRPG and a fantasy webcomic. I know which explanation I think is reasonable...

[ExLibrisMortis]

[...] it seems clear to me that Dragonexx was discussing from a Watsonian perspective.

He also referred to levels 21-25. That's pretty much the definition of out-of-universe perspective, not in-universe perspective (Watsonian, in your terms). I think your argument is shaky.

The way I read it, Dragonexx was saying that there's no justification (in-universe) for them [paragons and deities] being of different levels (out-of-universe). That is, the fluff difference between demon lords and CE deities isn't served by the crunch difference between CR 25 and CR 80. This is a completely reasonable claim, just one I happen to disagree with, and I've given my reasons--primarily in in-universe terms, but implying that the difference in power is great enough to be mechanically represented, as "build power" is a typical parameter to match in- and out-of-universe.

In any case, I think that was all already clear, until you brought up in- and out-of-universe perspectives.

[Max_Killjoy]

Can we just agree that there was a little miscommunication, and move on?

[GreatWyrmGold]

He also referred to levels 21-25. That's pretty much the definition of out-of-universe perspective, not in-universe perspective (Watsonian, in your terms). I think your argument is shaky.

I didn't say—rereads my last post—I didn't say the thing I meant to say. Dammit.

The way I read it, Dragonexx was saying that there's no justification (in-universe) for them [paragons and deities] being of different levels (out-of-universe).

The way I read it was "I see no reason to write the gods and archdemons as not being beings of comparable power".

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't run games based on the default D&D cosmology. When various Hell reams make an appearance, they exist as places of ironic punishment for bad people.

So most "Lords of Hell" and what D&D calls "devils" would be supernatural entities passing judgement and reinforcing such punishments. Their motives and actions are fairly predictable and understandable as long as you understand the system of ethics they serve, and balls-to-the-wall crazy and inscrutable if you, well, don't. They are constanstly active, but in a way that's mostly invisible to the player characters. (= you need to either die or incur severely bad karma.)

Then there are "lords" of Hell, or "demons" as D&D would put it, who are part of the convicts, sometimes conscripted to serve in the ranks of the "devils".

These are all manifestations of (chiefly) human sins and vices with theoretically human and understandable motives and goals. But they are motives and goals of some really twisted folks and thus may be counter-intuitive to people who aren't supremely conceited, violent, or otherwise hopeless. Sometimes, understanding the nature of their punishment may be an additional requirement for dealing with them.

For example, there is a demon that has impenetrable skin, no eyes, no nose and no anus. It feels neither hunger nor pain and needs neither sleep nor sustenance. What sin does it represent and what job does it serve in Hell? If you guesses gluttony, go pat yourself on the back. Give a second pat if you also guessed it's the supplymaster of Hell, responsible for giving food portions to the masses from larders filled with endless delicacies.

These "demons" are constantly active, but again, not in a way that would be visible to most player characters. You need to either die and end up in Hell to see most of it, or you need to be enough of a horrible person for some "devil" to offer you good-sounding deal that's really just a way to ironically screw you over.

[Dragonexx]

I didn't say—rereads my last post—I didn't say the thing I meant to say. Dammit.


The way I read it was "I see no reason to write the gods and archdemons as not being beings of comparable power".

I should specify. I meant that the differences between gods and archfiends are purely categorical. Orcus is a god. Erythnul is also a god. Orcus is also a demon and so is also called Demon Lord/Arch-Demon/Demon God/ect, much the same way you would call Gruumsh an Orc God or Corellon Larethan an Elf God.

[PastorofMuppets]

Make em like Satan in south park

[ExLibrisMortis]

I should specify. I meant that the differences between gods and archfiends are purely categorical. Orcus is a god. Erythnul is also a god. Orcus is also a demon and so is also called Demon Lord/Arch-Demon/Demon God/ect, much the same way you would call Gruumsh an Orc God or Corellon Larethan an Elf God.

You can run them like that, and from the perspective of Commoner #116, Last Dirt Farm Up the Road, Outer Faroffia, they sure seem the same. I still want to provide some background info, because I think there's some subtlety to the D&D lore that gets lost if you treat them all the same. Thank Afroakuma for the info, mistakes are all mine .

A deity has a divine portfolio.
A demon prince has control over a layer of the Abyss (typically, exceptions exist).
An elven deity is primarily worshiped by elves. Elven deities are also elf-like, which is probably no coincidence, but they're not elves.
A demon prince is not worshiped by demons. They are, of course, demons.

Erythnul has a portfolio (fear, pain, madness, slaughter), but no big role in demonic politics, let alone control over a layer. He has a divine realm, but it's in Pandemonium.
Orcus controls a layer (113, Thanatos), but he has no divine portfolio, though he has worshipers and a theme (undead, eternal ambition to climb to the heights of power).
Lolth has a portfolio (spiders, drow) and a layer under her control (layer 66, the Demonweb Pits). She's the demon queen and a drow deity simultaneously.

Lolth in particular is a good example of how demon prince-dom and deity-ness are separate and mostly unrelated.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A deity has a divine portfolio.
A demon prince has control over a layer of the Abyss (typically, exceptions exist).

But deities also control parts of the Outer Planes, and demon princes are associated with concepts (e.g, Jubilex and slime/corruption/gluttony/sloth). Terminology aside, they seem pretty much the same.

Orcus controls a layer (113, Thanatos), but he has no divine portfolio, though he has worshipers and a theme (undead, eternal ambition to climb to the heights of power).

Wait, why isn't his "theme" a divine portfolio? What is a divine portfolio, exactly? Can you define it without including the fact that it belongs to a god in its definition? (After all, saying "a god is defined by having a portfolio" and "a portfolio is defined by being held by a god" is circular logic, and we don't want that.)

Lolth has a portfolio (spiders, drow) and a layer under her control (layer 66, the Demonweb Pits). She's the demon queen and a drow deity simultaneously.
Lolth in particular is a good example of how demon prince-dom and deity-ness are separate and mostly unrelated.

I'd argue that she's instead an example of how they overlap.

An elven deity is primarily worshiped by elves. Elven deities are also elf-like, which is probably no coincidence, but they're not elves.
A demon prince is not worshiped by demons. They are, of course, demons.

This is a flaw with his argument, though not one which seriously affects his position.

[ExLibrisMortis]

But deities also control parts of the Outer Planes, and demon princes are associated with concepts (e.g, Jubilex and slime/corruption/gluttony/sloth). Terminology aside, they seem pretty much the same.

Well, I have a profession and a home (which I control and maintain), so I'm pretty much a deity and/or a demon prince, right?

Wait, why isn't his "theme" a divine portfolio? What is a divine portfolio, exactly? Can you define it without including the fact that it belongs to a god in its definition? (After all, saying "a god is defined by having a portfolio" and "a portfolio is defined by being held by a god" is circular logic, and we don't want that.)

It's not circular, it's a definition of deity and divine portfolio in terms of the relation between them. A deity is any being with a divine portfolio, a divine portfolio is a set of concepts that a particular deity is associated with, and the key characteristic is the relation between the deity and the porfolio, which is unique: the deity is to a large extent that set of concepts; it is a conscious entity "fused" to the concepts, to the extent that the deity has power and presence anywhere the concept exists. It is impossible, for example, to have death without Nerull knowing about it (seventeen weeks in advance, to be precise) and deriving power from it. Orcus, on the other hand, is the demon prince of undead, but he does not have the undeath porfolio. It's perfectly possible to have an animation of undead that Orcus doesn't know about or benefit from.

Note that Orcus is a special case, having been a deity as Tenebrous in the past. He has lost that mantle, and is plotting away to become a deity again, but under his own name.

I'd argue that she's instead an example of how they overlap.

How would Lolth be an example of overlap? None of the the things that make her a demon queen (is a demon spawned from the Abyss, controls a layer of the Abyss) are the same as the things that make her a deity (goddess of spiders and evil drow).