Talk:Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)

5e

I've added his appearance in the 5th edition, and part of the lore mentioned in the swords coast adventurer's handbook. It is in page 118, under the headline "The mark of Asmodeus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.239 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

World Serpent

I've gone ahead and deleted the part of the article that claimed that Jazirian's background as an aspect of the World Serpent was canonically questionable. There were two 2e books, "Monster Mythology", and the Forgotten Realms supplement "Powers and Pantheons", which established that Jazirian was an aspect of the World Serpent. So, the World Serpent origin for Jazirian was clearly around long before "Serpent Kingdoms". Zigra (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra

The question of canonicity isn't so much related to the Monster Mythology and P&P take on Jazirian and the World Serpent, but the association of that motif/mythology with the entirely seperate Guide to Hell use of Asmodeus and Jazirian.

The material regarding Jazirian as an aspect of the World Serpent doesn't have any real connection to the material claiming Asmodeus and Jazirian as a dualistic LE/LG pairing. In fact the original World Serpent sources you mention also IIRC have other serpentine gods and entities like Mershaulk and Shekinster as aspects of a putative World Serpent, which doesn't mesh at all with GtH's later use.

That said, I agree with your edit actually, but looking at it a bit more, I'd suggest removing those lines it applies to entirely, because the material doesn't have a connection to the GtH Asmodeus/Jazirian mythos; it's its own seperate mythos entirely that just happens to include Jazirian (but pointedly, not Asmodeus). Before I make an edit though, I'm curious about your take on the issue, and anyone else for that matter.Shemeska (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Shemeska. I just didn't like the way that part of the article had been worded because for two reasons- 1) it made the not-so-subtle implication that the World Serpent story of Jazirian's origins was non-canon to 2e Dungeons and Dragons in general and 2) whoever wrote that bit sounded as if they were unaware that there were two major 2e books which supported the World Serpent backstory for Jazirian, and that it wasn't just invented for 3rd Edition.

What I'd propose is pointing out that there is an alternate story for Jazirian's origins that conflicts with the story of Asmodeus and Jazirian as twins, and that it is uncertain which is the truth, or if they should be considered seperate coninuities in D&D material. Zigra (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra

The Guide To Hell got pretty extensively into Asmodeus being the lawful evil creator of the multiverse alongwith a lawful good Jazirian (who was a serpent with wings who created the multiverse with Asmodeus' tail in her mouth, and Asmodeus was wingless, like a two-serpent ouroboros); she flew to the top of seventh heaven when completed, and Asmodeus dropped into Hell creating the greatest rift in Nessus where he lays; the Asmodeus humanoid form residing in Malsheem is just an avatar projection of the wounded great serpent form of Asmodeus still stuck in the bottom of the pit; his bleeding / blood droplets on the way down created the race of Devils (baatezu) and atheism, not belief in Asmodeus, is what gives him power to unmake the multiverse so that he may make it alone this time in his image, without the help of Jazirian, so Asmodeus' true goal is to turn everyone to disbelief to re-create the multiverse without Jazirian)... this is his "hidden" nature as "The Devil" lord of all devils and Hell (Baator) according to The Guide To Hell. Quite an interesting D&D cosmology not to be neglected in my opinion. So many "supreme" evils in D&D, Tharizdun, etc. With this being one "interpretation" of a "supreme D&D evil"... of course this just may be how Asmodeus views it, and not the case, but it was an official D&D release, so canon to a degree of course. The whole "wishes to spread disbelief and get people away from worshipping any god, even himself" is a lot like Tharizdun's wish to annihilate everything; but wanting to remake everything in his dark image, is a nice nefarious "lawful" twist. ... I think this should be added, as extensive information about a trial for Asmodeus from other official information is added; separate continuities that are or were at one point canon, whether with TSR or Wizards of the Coast, are all part of the official history of the D&D Asmodeus character!4.242.174.28 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be added, but the continuties should be listed separately - that is, the 1E version, then the "unnamed lord of Nessus" from Planescape, then the Guide to Hell version, then the FC2 version, and now whatever they have for 4E (and anything else I missed). We shouldn't try to mix those together, as that is a big mess. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed the wording "Ninth Plane of Hell" to the "Ninth Layer of Hell". Hell is the plane, which just happens to have nine layers. - DDSaeger

Asmodai

Do we really need the blurb at the top of this article? "For the Judeo-Christian demon, see Asmodai." After all, anyone searching for that subject will probably never use "Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)" as a search term. It seems to be little more than clutter at this point.--Robbstrd 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong preference either way. Given the way Wikipedia is archived by search engines and mirror sites, there's no surefire way for us to know how readers will find their way to this or any other Wikipedia article, and the hatnotes are in my opinion a useful navigation/disambiguation aid for readers. However, reviewing the various discussions about hatnotes (e.g., WP:D talk, proposed guideline talk) there doesn't seem to be much consensus about when and where to use them, so I'll remove them for now. --Muchness 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I found this entry by googling for "asmodean" after reading about him in the Fiendish Codex II at a Borders. I clicked on a wikipedia result that took me to the Wheel of Time Asmodean article. From there I clicked on Judeo-Christian article about Asmodai. I went to the discussion page and found the section on "Asmodai in fiction" which linked to this article. Kind of convoluted, but thats the path that brought me here. Hope it helps. Patrickriggs 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a dab link back to certain articles in an attempt to stave off a content dispute with JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs), who feels the target articles are potentially useful to readers. I'm open to other suggestions – maybe a see also, or a section (if we can find sources) explaining how the D&D names are derived from/inspired by preexisting terms. --Muchness 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Why is there still a request for sources tag at the start of the article? Does anyone feel that the Book of Vile Darkness, Codex of the Nine Hells, and other sources aren't enough? Those two books are, I believe, the primary source of info on Asmodeus in D&D 3rd edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloween jack (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the trouble are the notability guidelines, which demand secondary sources (i. e. not the gaming products themselves). If these guidelines were strictly applied, I fear that an immense number of articles dealing with persons or objects in fiction would be deleted. I have included a source [1] that uses Asmodeus as one example of an evil Christian mythologic figure that gave rise to criticism of D&D. I wonder if this is enough to satisfy the notability requirement. Maybe the Dragon Magazine has articles about Asmodeus' importance for D&D (instead of in-game details only)? Daranios 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Name

Asmodeus just happens to be a combination of two latin words. These words are deus, which means "god", and asmo, which means I "". If you know the principal parts of asmo, or what it means, please visit my talk page: hereI think the origins of the name should be posted in the article, but I can't edit it because I don't know what asmo means. The Beatles Fan (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See the wikipedia entry for the "real" Asmodeus - it's actually Old Persian aeshma daeva, meaning the demon of anger. Paul S (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If using the latin 'Deus' "God", "asmo-" doesn't mean anything. In Indo-European roots though it means something like god of dry air / hot gusts of wind. God of the stifling atmosphere 4.242.174.28 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruby tipped rod or just " solid ruby rod"?

If I'm not mistaken books like Guide to Hell claim that Asmodeus' rod is a solid ruby rod, rather than a ruby tipped one, can anyone confirm? 4.242.174.103 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"In universe"

I got rid of that nonsensical banner bitching about the style being too "in-universe". I realise that there are more than a few wikipedia users who would love to see everything they see as, god forbid, "nerdy" purged from this site, but I remind them that it's well within their rights to not read articles like this. Anyway, it's silly to demand that in every article about Star Trek, the X Files, or AD&D, every other sentence remind the reader that they're reading about something fictional. The beginning of this article very clearly states that Asmodeus is lord of Nessus and king of all baatezu IN THE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS ROLE PLAYING GAME UNIVERSE. I don't think any seminary student is in danger of turning in a paper about the threat Asmodeus, Demogorgon, or the General of Gehenna pose to the Church :P. 174.62.230.28 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal playground. If you don't agree with particular policy, discuss it on proper page. In-universe tag restored. Anon 77.254.14.87 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, but starting the article with "is a fictional character" seems about as clear as you could get to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.111.229 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tags

With all respect, TheRedPenOfDoom, I don't believe it serves any useful purpose to place multiple tags on the article. One general tag, indicating multiple problems, ought to be sufficient. Discussing the article's problems on the talk page would be more helpful than placing a massive wall of tags at the start of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)