Talk:Asmodeus

Where is the source for Asmodeus being an Archon created by the Primordials?

Clean Up
Hello everyone,

I'd love to make edits on this article. A few matters like the proper POV, citation, sections, and the like are clear. I've got a question about the History-section. The article's History-section isn't written in the proper POV, but may I preserve it under the appendix as "Publication History" or should it be deleted completely once it's replaced?

Best regards

Saya222 (talk) 18:32, December 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * You may move the Publication History as is to the Appendix if you'd like. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:16, December 5, 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is far to big for me to touch myself, but I noticed under Activities, that Asmodeus consumes the souls of unbelievers according to Guide to Hell. This is probably in conflict with the Realms notion that unbelievers are caught in the Wall of the Faithless. Clarifying this might be part of a clean-up. Daranios (talk) 15:54, December 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Daranios,


 * I tried to reconcile the Faithless issue. In short it is about Faithless being petitioners, while the souls Asmodeus ate lacked the faith, the belief in the divine, to become ones. I hope it works. Also about your question whether there was a typo. It was a genuine mistake on my side. Thank you for fixing it.


 * Best regards and again thank you


 * Saya222 (talk) 19:42, December 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Saya!
 * Thanks for caring about this detail! I am a little late to look into this: An interesting solution, but also a very fine line to walk. Player's Guide to Faerûn already distinguishes between the Faithless and The False, and only calls the latter "petitioners". I guess that and Guide to Hell can be reconciled if those Faithless who go into the Wall of the Faithless did not properly belief in a deity, while those faithless (lower case) who are consumed by Asmodeus really did not belief in anything, neither in deities nor values nor moral systems.
 * That said, I think the section is fine as it is, it is completely correct according to its sources. Daranios (talk) 20:38, December 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Daranios,


 * thank you for reading it. I agree it's a very tight rope. It in fact hinges on one sentence. I presume that you have Player's Guide to Faerûn. May I ask for a favor for the person I borrowed it from is currently in vacation?


 * The content of the favor I'm asking for is to check whether all souls on the Fugue Plane are petitioners. I thought I read above the section with the False that all souls in the Fugue Plane are petitioners without any of the usual planar traits but still petitioners. If I misread it, then my "solution" is simply wrong and needs to be deleted.


 * I'm sorry for the rather impudent request.


 * Best regards


 * Saya222 (talk) 08:23, December 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing impudent at all about asking for source information. Here's what page 152 of the Player's Guide to Faerun says:
 * "The Fugue Plane’s only inhabitants are the souls of the dead awaiting transport to the planes of their deities. These souls are petitioners with no planar traits—no immunities, resistances, or special qualities. The souls of the Faithless form a living wall around the City of Judgment, while the souls of the False are sentenced to servitude within the city, where they are sometimes tortured by devils.
 * "The False are the petitioners of the Fugue Plane, since they are its only permanent residents (except the Faithless, who are doomed to be dissolved into the substance of the plane). The False have no immunities, resistances, or other special qualities, but they are protected to some extent by the unchanging nature of the plane."
 * --Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:09, December 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Dark T Zeratul,


 * thank you for the information. So, all souls are petitioners, I'm quite relieved. Again thank you.


 * Best regards


 * Saya222 (talk) 16:45, December 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for sorting this out and solving my problem within the article :-). Daranios (talk) 19:21, December 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Made the References section into two columns, since it has over 100 of them. --Regis87 (talk) 20:02, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Unfair Bias Toward 2nd Edition
A lot of the information incorrectly treats the second edition lore as canon and essentially ignores the 1st 2rd 4th and 5th edition lore as being secret lies designed to throw of the second edition lore.

The document should reflect the actual lore not what somebody wants the lore to be

Asmodeus has not been confirmed to be a serpet and his backstory has had him be an angel for about 30 years in real time.

WillytheHatefulGoat (talk) 08:44, July 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Willy,


 * Thanks for your feedback and for making a user account.


 * I do not know much about Asmodeus, but I know that several other members here care a lot about his lore, so I will let them weigh in.


 * I can say, however, that we treat all lore with the same weight, unless there is a direct conflict, so if, hypothetically, 2e stated something as fact, and then 3e, 4e, and 5e suggested alternatives, the 2e version would be considered canon. I am not saying that that is the case here; I am just trying to clarify how canon lore works. If all state something as fact, then, no, we should not be favoring one version, unless another version is blatantly inconsistent with other established lore.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:06, July 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S.: When leaving a note, you can sign your name and date with four s in a row.


 * It's an incredibly long article, but I recently read through and edited the entire thing and my impression was that it goes to great lengths to clarify the different myths, depictions, and contradictions. In fact, I had to simplify it to make it more concise and I checked some of the original lore in the sourcebooks myself. While I didn't read all of it, I do know that the 3e material made great pains to present its Pact Primeval story as a dubious myth told by devils and does not contradict, but actually retains elements of and hints strongly at, the early serpent story. And some editions are more explicit than others: if 2e declares outright Asmodeus is an enormous snake and 3e says he appears as a humanoid devil but this might be wrong and here's clues suggesting he's an enormous snake, then you can see which one we have to take as the truth.


 * All editions are canon, and as Lhynard said, we treat them all equally and unbiased but try to give later editions higher status or later chronology where necessary. But sometimes, errors and misunderstandings can slip through. If you can point out specific errors, in sentence, source, and interpretation, I'll look at it and see if I can revise or clarify. However, removing chunks of valid text and rewriting in very unclear and error-prone language is not the way to resolve these issues, only further exacerbate them. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:37, July 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you give us a source in 4e or 5e that states that Asmodeus is not a serpentine creature? Or a 4e or 5e source that states as fact and not myth that he is a humanoid? That could help us too. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:42, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Whiles I understand that you should give precident to the source that just outright confirms a source I argue that this source is ignoring any other condradictory evidence as false. The third editon story is meant ot present a different view of asmodeus that could be compatible with the second edition version not a version that is automatically false. The reasons the author rejects this theory is because it mentions several dieties from Greyhawk but in 3rd edition Greyhawk was the default edition so those gods would have factored in and tied to a multiverse of gods bargaining with asmodeus.

Whiles I understand that the second edition lore is going to be given precident simply because it did not leave anything ambigious like the later lore I feel a simple (according to somes sources) asmodeus is a serpent to offer the idea that some of the sources might be wrong and to show that its a possible interpreation of asmodeus. Not the only intrpretation.

The big problem with this article is that it is overvalueing a guide to hell of tyrants guide to the nine hell when the lore contradicts itself because its trying to make the lore fit as guide to the hell even though tyrants of the nine if the more recent book.

I'd also suggest removing he who was as that is a different asmodeus from nentir vale and not the realms asmdoeus as this backstory does not work for the realmspace.

I suggest a small adjustment to the document that would reflect that the seprent story might not be the only story but still giving it default over the other stories.

(WillytheHatefulGoat (talk) 03:46, August 16, 2020 (UTC)) 16/8/2020


 * As before, I'm still not sure what the problem is here. As I recall, when I read through and edited the entire article, all the alternative origin stories and related lore are treated equally, with the possibility that it's just a story emphasized and doubts included. If you think there is an error is mishandling of this here, then please point out the specific line that you think is at fault, because I cannot and will not read it again. It's as huge as that big snake at the bottom of Serpent's Coil. :)


 * And the 4-edition origin story is core lore from core sources that's applied to most settings, including the Realms, and is not specific to Nentir Vale/Nerath. It is as valid as the origin story of any other edition.


 * Finally, if you don't think the 4e story is valid, and the 3e story is just a story, and you don't think the 2e story should have a focus, then what origin story should be the focus here? AFAICT, 5e doesn't offer a new one, only a later event that doesn't contradict anything, and the 1e story is solidly non-canon. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:26, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

The 4e one I may prefer but I just saw it as a different universe to the forgottem realms and the lore was different in that editon. Appearantly I was wrong. And remember that for the end of the post.

The problem lines that I point out are this The activities section.

The soul of non believers is an issue. The forgottem realms explains what happens to non believers and in non forgottem realm. The faithless turn into the essence of the plane and become part of the wall and the false get tortured by the gods forever. Asmodeus promoting athiesm does not seem to be supported in the forgotten realms to my knowledge. It seems that the petitioners are seperate from asmodeus. But this point is already asked and answered earlier in the discussion page but it is a point against the existance of the serpent origin.

It aslo states that asmodeus final goal is to bring about chaos in the multivers which is like. What.

In mordenkaines tomb of foes this is directly condradicted on pg 10 he who would rule which suggest a restructuring of the universe not a primal soup where is is the only being.

The blood war section has a few issues.

In third edition the blood was is shown to be a divinly mandadted war between the hells and the abyss to prevent the abyss from destroying everything. Its not a war the devils are throwing but an even split. Source Demon perspective mordenkainens tomb of foes page 8.

Also in the relationship with devils it again presents the lore in third editon as lesser because it condradicts the lore in 2nd editon. It says stuff like the the dubious origin of bel or the pact primvel version of mephistopholes but gives no such sources to any of the other archdevils.

Appendix section.

In appendix is says the origin story of the angel is unlikely and that is just favoritism with the mention of the gods being from a different setting. Those gods were the default gods in dnd in third edition so would have been the stories in that world.

It also lists the 4th edition asmodeus as an ancient god.and does not mention the angel origin which is appearanlty and very valid source on asmodeus. Actually. If the document defauts to the later modern dnd lore and the angel is a valid interpretation should'nt that replace the old lore. Because according to you the most recent lore replaces the old lore where they condradict and you just accepted the 4th edition lore as canon. So now I can present the 4th editon lore as canon which does direclty condradict the earlier lore at several points and as the most recent edition it would have supremacy.

We now have two equally valid sources with information where is could be argued that both are canon and one is being given more precident than the other.

To be honest personally I really like both origin stories equally but one story is being given all the focus compared to the other than any of the other stories when both have equal canon supporting one or the other and the angel story has the more recent canon.

(WillytheHatefulGoat (talk) 02:46, August 17, 2020 (UTC))


 * Please do not alter the text of my post. It's a common courtesy. I'm only removing the excessive spaces from yours for the sake of legibility.
 * Yes, the Realms handles atheism differently. But how it's handled in core D&D is just one of those core things that creeps in because of our need to document the core D&D that creeps in. That Asmodeus may do things differently is not an issue.
 * The article does not say Asmodeus's final goal is to turn everything to chaos. That's just a step after tearing everything does, before rebuilding everything the way he likes it.
 * You haven't raised any actual issues regarding the Blood War in this article.
 * The article says nothing about Bel's origin. And it's about Asmodeus, it shouldn't have any more than coverage of the archdevils than necessary for explaining Asmodeus.
 * The Appendix does not say the angel story is unlikely or favoritism. It just tells the story and expresses some doubts about accuracy (St. Cuthbert is an ascended mortal, not an original deity as in the Pact Primeval story). When the story is depicted as doubtful in the very sourcebook that first told it, you can hardly blame the wiki article for repeating that).
 * The other issues you seem to have are the usual conflicts of D&D lore, which I believe the wiki article accounts for as well as it can. — BadCatMan (talk) 10:07, August 17, 2020 (UTC)
 * (FeyPact 15:46, August 17, 2020 (UTC))
 * Sorry for that. I don't really know the customs and will not make the mistake again.
 * I'm pretty sure athiesm is handled differently in other worlds as well and people just go to the plane that matches their alignment in default dnd. Esepcially since asmodeus promotes people worshipping him now since he became a god and would not want athiests.
 * The blood war stuff that I took issue with is that the blood war is a scam that asmodeus could win whenver he really wanted and that's why the war had not ended. But in mordenkainens tomb of foes they show the actual reason the blood war has ended and their is no mention that the devil leadership are willfully throwing the war away.
 * And when you present multiple origin stories but talk about one origin story as it is and the others as myths and rumours then the article is showing bias against the other origin stories.
 * The only official source on the origin of asmodeus in 5th edition is published in explorers guide to wildemount which presents an asmodeus who was a celestial before falling.  That lore may be specific to wildemount  but its the only 5th edition book that makes a statement on asmodeus.
 * The blood war stuff that I took issue with is that the blood war is a scam that asmodeus could win whenver he really wanted and that's why the war had not ended. But in mordenkainens tomb of foes they show the actual reason the blood war has ended and their is no mention that the devil leadership are willfully throwing the war away.
 * And when you present multiple origin stories but talk about one origin story as it is and the others as myths and rumours then the article is showing bias against the other origin stories.
 * The only official source on the origin of asmodeus in 5th edition is published in explorers guide to wildemount which presents an asmodeus who was a celestial before falling.  That lore may be specific to wildemount  but its the only 5th edition book that makes a statement on asmodeus.
 * The only official source on the origin of asmodeus in 5th edition is published in explorers guide to wildemount which presents an asmodeus who was a celestial before falling.  That lore may be specific to wildemount  but its the only 5th edition book that makes a statement on asmodeus.
 * The only official source on the origin of asmodeus in 5th edition is published in explorers guide to wildemount which presents an asmodeus who was a celestial before falling.  That lore may be specific to wildemount  but its the only 5th edition book that makes a statement on asmodeus.


 * There are some incorrect statements in these assertions. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes does not in any way say or even imply that the Blood War has ended. There is nothing on that book that is inconsistent with what other editions say about the motivations for the conflict, or about Asmodeus's ability to end the conflict at any point if he so wished.


 * In addition, the little that Explorer's Guide to Wildemount says about Asmodeus is so extremely vague ("the celestial blood that once bore him") that it cannot be implied to favor any one of his other origin stories. Why couldn't Ahriman be considered a celestial, for instance?


 * In general, I see no issue with the way the Activities or Relationships sections are worded. They seem perfectly consistent with Asmodeus's origin stories and motivations across editions. For example, the issue with Asmodeus recruiting petitioners in the Fugue plane is supported in p. 153 of the 3e Player's Guide to Faerûn, as well as p. 25 of the very recent 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.


 * Your own assertions about the article itself are incorrect. The article is very careful to present all of the different origin stories about Asmodeus as equally possible and valid. I see no evidence for this perceived bias in favor of the 2-edition Guide to Hell story. It is presented, like the others, as just one possible story. Conflicting bits of lore are all treated individually in equal footing, and reconciled when possible, in the best tradition of this wiki.


 * ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 17:14, August 17, 2020 (UTC)
 * (FeyPact 04:39, August 19, 2020 (UTC))
 * In wildemount asmodeus is an angel.  By every definition ahriman cannot be a celestial. As he is a fiend and represented law and evil. In the same way Zariel was not a celestial but a devil under his rule asmodeus could not ever be considered a celestial in that origin story. He was lilteray a representation of lawful evil that cannot be an angel in the 2e story.  According to the creator of that setting asmodeus was anangel who rebelled against his God very similiar to the 4e setting and as the latest representation of asmodeus is an official book implies that the angelic asmodeus is still around.  
 * In addition asmodeus does recruit petitioners on the fugue plane. The argument I made was that he devours the souls of atheists which I have found no evidence stating that he does that past second edition and I think it was removed because real world athiests got offended.
 * The point I am arugeing is most other wiki's highlight that each of these origin stories in ambigious. Asmodeus might be the primal concept of evil or he might be an fallen angel or the whole thing might be made up and he could be a slaad who rolled 3 natural 20s in a row and is now way in over his head.  But this wiki does not present that ambiugity at all.
 * The point of the blood war in mordenkaines tomb of foes is that it states the reason the demons and devils are tied is because the abyss has a lot more fighters and threatens to destroy the world every day unless the devils stop them. This implies the sides are equally matched without asmodeus jobbing to let them win. In descent into avernus its even presented as a possibility that if zariel leaves avernus could fall to the demons and the devils might lose the blood war which implies asmodeus is not trying to statemate the blood war.
 * Especially since he has made several efforts to win the blood war from remaking the multiverse to force the abyss away from him to trying to take the shard of evil to dominate the abyss which failed.
 * The article does not present the origin stories equally because it decides one of the origin stories is true and writes that origin storyas though it is the canon then relegates the other origin story to the bottom of the page with several asteriks explaining why its false. The wiki could easily make statements about what is known for a fact. For example removing referenec to his true form at the start of the page and move that down. Because the entire second edition book is I believe told from the perspective of a single scholar and the story may have flaws. Just say asmodeus appears as a human figure. Then have another line saying some scholars say his true form is that of a titanic seprent whiles others say he's an angel. Either way he rests beneath the serpents coil slowly heaing his wounds from his fall.
 * Even the story of Jazirium presents condradictions of her relationship to asmodeus in later books a presents her as slain by mershanks and not related to asmodeus.
 * Again I like the story of asmodeus as a being of law and evil who helped make the universe. But their is enough evidence for and against it that the story should be shown as ambigious.
 * Especially since he has made several efforts to win the blood war from remaking the multiverse to force the abyss away from him to trying to take the shard of evil to dominate the abyss which failed.
 * The article does not present the origin stories equally because it decides one of the origin stories is true and writes that origin storyas though it is the canon then relegates the other origin story to the bottom of the page with several asteriks explaining why its false. The wiki could easily make statements about what is known for a fact. For example removing referenec to his true form at the start of the page and move that down. Because the entire second edition book is I believe told from the perspective of a single scholar and the story may have flaws. Just say asmodeus appears as a human figure. Then have another line saying some scholars say his true form is that of a titanic seprent whiles others say he's an angel. Either way he rests beneath the serpents coil slowly heaing his wounds from his fall.
 * Even the story of Jazirium presents condradictions of her relationship to asmodeus in later books a presents her as slain by mershanks and not related to asmodeus.
 * Again I like the story of asmodeus as a being of law and evil who helped make the universe. But their is enough evidence for and against it that the story should be shown as ambigious.
 * Even the story of Jazirium presents condradictions of her relationship to asmodeus in later books a presents her as slain by mershanks and not related to asmodeus.
 * Again I like the story of asmodeus as a being of law and evil who helped make the universe. But their is enough evidence for and against it that the story should be shown as ambigious.
 * Again I like the story of asmodeus as a being of law and evil who helped make the universe. But their is enough evidence for and against it that the story should be shown as ambigious.
 * Again I like the story of asmodeus as a being of law and evil who helped make the universe. But their is enough evidence for and against it that the story should be shown as ambigious.


 * There seems to be a bit of confusion about what is being regarded as canon here. This wiki only considers officially published material (such s sourcebooks, Dragon and Dungeon magazine articles, etc. For more details, take a look at our canon policy.


 * Following that policy, the content in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is considered to be low-tier canon by this wiki, meaning that, if contradicted by a Forgotten Realms-specific source, the content there is to be regarded as Wildemount-specific, and therefore not Realms canon. However, events and assertions from streamed games are not canon at all. Therefore, what Matt Mercer says about Asmodeus outside of what is published in the books is not canon material in this wiki. Now, please be aware that this policy varies from wiki to wiki, so the Critical Role Wiki might be a more appropriate place to discuss what Matt says specifically about Asmodeus's origin outside of the books.


 * Now, with that out of the way, let's address some of your points:
 * You say that Ahriman could not be a celestial because he could not be an angel. Why? Where is the canon source that says that? There are many, many other types of celestials that are not angels, and those are only the ones that are known to sages in the Prime Material plane.
 * Your comments about the reasons presented for the Blood War in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes are written entirely from the combatants' point of view. The book is conspicuously silent about Asmodeus's stake in the war, and does not mention his direct involvement in it at all. So whether or not he could actually end the war tomorrow if he chose to, the book does not say anything to support or refute that.
 * As for your other comments, you make several claims about origin stories other than the one from Guide to Hell being relegated to the bottom of the page with several "asterisks" on them. It seems like the article you are reading is not the same BCM and I are talking about. We already replied about the previous passages you pointed out before, and we found no evidence of what you claim. Please show us what specific passages make you think that the Guide to Hell story is taking precedence over the others. Notice that the Development section in the Appendix consists of out-of-universe comments highlighting the differences between editions. It is not written from an in-universe perspective.


 * ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 19:16, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

(FeyPact 21:47, August 19, 2020 (UTC))
 * Firstly I feel it is unfair to imply that asmodeus origin story had him as an angel. That source states he was a celestial. A celestial creature is a creature aligned with the upper planes. Asmodeus in that story was not a celestial as he was aligned with the lower planes and his essence created fiends when he fell from the earth.  You can choose to ignore that cannon if you like but that story does refer to him as a corrupted angits not fair to argue that ahriman was a celestial.  Their is no evidence of that in any edition that the asmodeus in that story is a celestial and it is impossible to prove that he was'nt an celestial  because you can't prove a negative His blood created pit fiends he was aligned with the hells.  FInd a single source that proves in any regard that ahriman was a celestial spirit before he seperated.
 * Secondly the sections you specifically give credence to the 2nd edition origin is in his description divine realm and activities section. Asmodeus is a god now. He can grant divine spellcasting since he consumed the spark of azuth so this lore in incorrect.  In mordenkainens tomb of foes they state the actual reason that the devils have not one the blood war. In descent into avernus it is possible for demons to overwhelm the devils and potentially drive off all the devils and win the blood war.  Asmodeus has also made several attempts to end the blood war reorganizing the universe stealing the shard of the abyss all of which failed. If he could end the blood war he would have done so when trying to end the blood war. As he has tried and failed multiple times in canon.
 * The origin of him spreading disbelief in the universe and feeding of athiests has not been continued since second edition. He does not eat the souls of non believers.anymore and has granted divine spellcasting. His main focus is on spreading law and evil not disbelief.as noticed by every single action he has made in 5e none of which involve spreading disbelief.
 * Their is also lore found in the devils section on baelabub  and mephisophles section. They are the only two devils who show that their lore is ambigious and that is because their lore comes from tyrants of the nine hells.
 * The story in guide to hell is also meant to have been written by a single scholar who could have been flawed.  Jazirium has been killed by the yuan ti god mershanks in an orgin story that does not mention asmodeus.  This article is ignoring the other lore to present the lore of the serpent as the only canon when the truth is more interesting and ambigious..  If the lore of this document is meant to be written in universe then should'nt it present asmodues true origin as mysterious to reflect the facts its in universe.


 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. My only point with the Ahriman discussion is that, since no source claims that Ahriman was not a celestial (in fact, no source claims anything about what Ahriman really is), you cannot say that a celestial origin automatically refutes the Ahriman story. These things are left vague by the sources on purpose.


 * Your claim that Asmodeus has only become a deity after consuming Azuth is incorrect, and inconsistent with every edition since 2e. Asmodeus's origin as a greater deity is clearly stated on p. 73 of the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. He merely recovered some of his divine powers after doing that. This is also consistent with p. 57 of the 5e Monster Manual, p. 123 of the 3e Manual of the Planes, and p. 4 of Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus.


 * The sections you mentioned (Description, Divine Realm, and Activities) all provide sources beyond Guide to Hell to back up their claims. The Description section is backed up by p. 123 of the 3e Manual of the Planes, which makes very clear statements about Asmodeus's true form. In fact, all editions agree that Asmodeus only manifests himself in the form of illusions or avatars, so there is no inconsistency there, whatever his origin or true body may be. The Divine Realm section is backed by multiple 5e sources; and the activities section draws from several editions, always making an effort to blend them together. Not one of them actively claims that one origin story or other is incorrect, or less reliable.


 * You claim that Asmodeus has made several attempts to end the Blood War, all of which failed. Please provide exact citations to back up those claims.


 * As to Asmodeus's behavior towards nonbelievers, just because subsequent editions do not mention his plans of spreading disbelief or consuming their souls, it does not mean that he has stopped doing it. He can do other things too, as other editions state. That is the entire point of this wiki: to document lore from all editions.


 * You say that the article does not present Asmodeus's origin as mysterious. Yet, look at the very first paragraph of the History section. It says exactly that.
 * ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 23:35, August 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * Asmodeus is a greater diety but I was referring to guide to hell which claims that he cannont grant spells. This is no longer the case as he directly grants spells to clerics and paladins now.
 * The manual of the planes book does not state that he is a serpent. Merely that anyone who learns of his true form his killed  If Arhiman is was a celestial because no lore condradcited it then you must also concede that asmodeus true form could speak to his injured state as an angelic being and not reference his serpent form.
 * If none of the origins claim that each origin is incorrect or less reliable and their is equal evidence that both origin stories are true then shouldnt the article reflect that in the wiki.  Just move his description of a serpent to the histories section and replace it with a section highlight the mystery of his true form.
 * The cases for asmodeus attempting to end the blood war are when he attempted to steal the Shard of the abyss to conquer the abyss and when he restructered the universe to end the blood war. I
 * If the Wiki is to document lore from all editions then it should present the lore as as ambigious.
 * I concede the point that asmodeus has not activlity stopped spreading non belief. Its not been continued by wizards of the coast because a lot of unfortunate implications of that lore and their are multipe churchs and organisations he built to spread belief in him but their is no source saying he has'nt been doing that so I concede its impossible to disprove.
 * The histories section present his lore as mysterious and if the rest of the document was written in that matter I would have no problem with it. But it is not. It directly takes the 2e lore at face value making concrete statements about his true form and his motives even when they are condradicted by later books. All I am asking is to move the mention of him being a serpent down a paragraph and present his true form as mystery but some scholars say it is a titanic serpent and others an angel.  But anyone who learns the truth is killed in 24 hours.  And move the mention of his relationship of Jazirium to the histories section to present its ambigiuty.
 * When the lore condradcits itself its not the articles job to smother over the lore and try to make it work but to reflect those inconsistenties
 * (FeyPact 02:13, August 20, 2020 (UTC))

Like two snakes biting each other's tails, this conversation is going around in circles and now I think it has run its course. We can't clearly understand what you're saying, and I'm not sure you understand what we're trying to get across. The aim of the wiki is to accurately reflect the lore and its changes and contradictions, and to fit those together into a coherent whole article where possible, where there are no glaring contradictions. We feel it does that as best as can be done. I suspect most of the issues you have are actually issues you'd have with D&D lore itself in the sourcebooks of each edition, not with how the wiki presents them.

Is there a specific error you can point out? If so, please quote the exact line of text and source and point out the issue. General statements about sections or topics you reckon aren't right don't help at this scale of article.

Otherwise, I'd like to call for this to come an end as it's just becoming a waste of time all around and I don't think we can help each other. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:43, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

 (FeyPact 23:11, August 20, 2020 (UTC)) 

I am not stating the article is not sourced well .I was pointing out when the lore condradict itself the article ignores it.

I have no issue with the lore of dungeons and dragons. The issue i have is this article presenting the second editon lore as the lore and ignoring all retcons and changes to the lore pretending the lore was never changed or that their is no ambigiuty. I have highlighted specific sections and layouts. The blood war the fact he's a snake and not an angel the specific mention of Jazirium outside of the histories collection multiple origin stories unrelated to asmodeus the blood war being a scam he could win. All of those are ambigious in  canon and is meant to be potentially falseand the article shows none of that amgiuty.

And yes you are ignoring the retcons and changes to the lore. Just because you reference a story in the history section at the botton of the page does not mean you are counting the lore from the editons or showing the confusion. And asmodeus in the only article that does this. In the Jazirium article its shown as ambigious because the lore conradcits itself so the article shows it but this articel is written as though the second edition lore is the only lore even when its ambigious or theirs evidence for both sides.

The histories section says its ambigious what creature he is but the description directly says what creature he is. That is an issue when the article says its ambigious then just answers the question.

The specific errors are whenever the articlle lays out changes between the second edtion lore and the modern lore it defaults to the second edition lore. Only this article shows the fact that asmodeus being a serpent is canon. The wikipedia article the greyhawk wiki artictle the 1d4 chan article all show them as mutliple sources and present the conflict. This article does none of that as is the only one to do so.. When their are multiple origin stories you don't decide one is canon and the others are false which is what the article does. Yes it presents multiple histories but in the article section it ignores all the histories from third and 4th edtion and references the second edition article over all others. I have shown those examples multiple times. In the relationships in the histories whenver the lore is ambigous you just ignore the other lore and default back to second edition lore.

The specific examples of the article direclty stating stuff when the lore is ambigious on it are this.


 * DescriptionTrue form a snake. Meant to be ambigous in lore but the article states it as fact.


 * Personality.One Jazirium who is able to stop him. This is a history section and if the Jazirium story is one possible story should not be in personality.

Divine realm. Serpentine body. Should just be body becasue its ambigous if the story is even true

Activities. Mention he cannot grant spells which he could after he consumed the spark of azuth.


 * Mentions the struggle with Jazirium which should be in histories if the origin story is ambigious.


 * Blood war. Both says he hates the Gods for leaving the devils to do his dirty work and does not care of value the blood war. Could both be true but the dissonance should be highlighted.


 * Relationship Dieties Specifically mention he needs other gods to grant spells which after consuming azuth he does not.


 * Histories. Manual of the planes does not refer to asmodeus as as serpent only that his body resides in the serpents coil

Those are all flaws in the article and need to be looked at.