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.

It was a deception and I fooled you into accepting the canon of asmodeus as an angel into evidence.. Lawful evil to the max. Mwhahahahahahaha.

But in all seriousness. 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)