Talk:Tome of Fiends (3.5e Sourcebook)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is Awesome[edit]

Really, this saved my day by pointing out the fact that even low level players could adventure in the abyss.

And i have a nice idea of an adventure, where the players discover an all-powerful artifact, but demon and devil armies have shown up, both saying, that if the players dont give the artifact to them, they're screwed. heck, the players could just screw them using the artifact, and with a bit of luck, this will end up with all the fiends participating in a big auction for the artifact (+ surpreme power of the lower planes). --Hijax 02:27, 9 August 2008 (MDT)

Y'welcome. If you're doing this, I'd suggest going to Planewalker.com and doing a search for artifacts. They have some nice ones. Except they changed the format of the site, so it's harder to search. Genowhirl 21:41, 14 August 2008 (MDT)

Prejudice[edit]

I'm detecting a strong Lawful bias in this article. You went so far as to outright reject spontaneity as an attribute for Chaotic characters, and I think you should have considered it more carefully before you made a statement like that. Spontaneous doesn't mean "unpredictable", it means "unplanned". What it means for a Chaotic character to be spontaneous is that they're better at acting on instinct and whatnot. A Lawful character makes plans while a Chaotic character makes it up as he goes. A Lawful character faced with a snap decision, a flaw in the plan, or new information may be unable to act quickly, and correspondingly a Chaotic character is poor at long-term planning. Besides which, it's close to impossible for a duality to truly be ambiguous, as you allege. An aspect of a character may fit the description of both Lawful and Chaotic; however, as long as definitions are given for both Law and Chaos, regardless of the quality of those definitions, it's probably going to lean toward one or the other. --EM 11:16, 30 October 2008 (CST)

Except 'unplanned' and 'making it up as you go' is unpredictable. Surgo 08:09, 31 October 2008 (MDT)
Not according to this article. If those were the definitions being used there would hardly be a problem with Chaotic being spontaneous. See the heading "Rigidity: Not A Rubric For Law", which completely fails to arrive at the obvious conclusion it presents itself. --EM 09:15, 31 October 2008 (PST)
Except that you can also be Lawful and unpredictable if that's in your nature (which it obviously is), according to the definitions in the PHB. Surgo 11:18, 1 November 2008 (MDT)
Again, though, unplanned and unpredictable are not the same thing, either in definition or as presented in this article. Unplanned does not mean that nobody else knows what you're going to do. If you're not planning ahead, someone else can still predict how you'll act based on what he knows about you. What it means is that you do not know for sure exactly what you're going to do until the time comes to actually get in there and do it, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, re: my proposed flaw for Lawful characters. --EM 00:38, 2 November 2008 (PST)
I think you missed the main thrust of the sections on Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Good and Evil can be handled gracefully, but it might just be simplest to ignore Law and Chaos entirely. I've played under a DM who was a fanatic about them, and it didn't end prettily. That's just my take on the situation, though. Also, you and Surgo disagreeing just helps show that pretty much everybody has their own idea of 'law' and 'chaos'. Genowhirl 12:02, 31 October 2008 (MDT)
In the end nobody has to agree with anyone else on the meanings for Law and Chaos to work, they just have to agree to what the DM ultimately decides, because that's how the game works. I personally have not met anyone yet who had a problem with the precise concept I have offered. It's the same concept my current DM uses, and we both arrived at this conclusion independently. What I'm saying is, I don't think it's nearly as much of a problem as the article presents it to be. --EM 09:15, 31 October 2008 (PST)
Just because two people managed to come to an agreement on it, doesn't mean everyone can. A friend of mine has made a setting, and I've been helping him with ideas and the like, but I doubt I'll ever play it because I really dislike--and disagree with--the definitions he made for each of the nine alignments, and those alignments are indeed very important to the setting so there's no getting around them. Agreement's possible on a small scale, and can work out to have a great fun on it, but trying to make a large-scale, perfect definition what Law is versus Chaos, is really just too daunting a task. I'd be a lot better with it if they were material forces rather than ethical ones; I could be down with the world working because of a yin-yang effect of Order and Chaos. 74.182.83.96 13:39, 1 November 2008 (MDT)
That sounds interesting, I'd like to play a game with that treatment. And I never intended to suggest everyone has to agree. For Law and Chaos to work, people just have to be able to live with the DM's decision, and either you can or you can't. --EM 00:21, 2 November 2008 (PST)
You've just met one person. Surgo 11:18, 1 November 2008 (MDT)
Um... care to elaborate, maybe? In what way do you not agree with my analysis of the difference between Lawful and Chaotic characters, or are you just trying to present an argument? --EM 00:21, 2 November 2008 (PST)
I've played a character who evolved to Chaotic Neutral in about five minutes. He was basically an ADHD Eberron Kalashtar Soulknife who was out to foil the Inspired/Quori's plots on Khorvaire by exposing them and, should that fail, just plain murdering the nearest Inspired. Koth was capable of long-term, systematic planning. Indeed, he went through a lot of trouble and care to obtain an extremely incriminating letter which he used to expose the Inspired ambassador to a Dragonmarked House (after he murdered the ambassador). But he was also impulsive and almost compulsively happy-go-lucky. He's one of my few characters I feel wholly comfortable with assigning an alignment descriptor to. The DM eventually made his own setting, though, and has Chaotic Neutral defined as essentially insanity or some sort of mental dysfunction. He claims it's possible to think you're a cleric of one god but really be a cleric of the Chaotic Neutral god. Genowhirl 01:40, 2 November 2008 (MST)
Again, though, the problem there seems to be with the DM. At any rate, this doesn't seem to provide any reason why my suggestion wouldn't work, it just tells me that you've played Chaotic characters before. --EM 16:15, 2 November 2008 (PST)
Chaos and Law are supposed to be equal and opposite forces. Are you so sure that your solution makes it so? Surgo 20:15, 2 November 2008 (MST)

Long[edit]

Is there any way we can break down this article into subarticles that it can link to. The page is god awfully long.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:48, 30 December 2008 (MST)

I'm all for having a sub-page for all four of the Tomes in DnD Other. -- Genowhirl 08:22, 30 December 2008 (MST)

Heck, I'm so for it, give me the subpage, and I'll section up the articles myself. I put them on here and all, so I guess it's part of my responsibility. -- Genowhirl 09:10, 30 December 2008 (MST)
I think it would be a good idea under the major subareas of the page to put a "See: ArticleLinkHere" bit and divide it like that. I'd divide by the major divieders (i.e. Morality, then Fiends with.....) But thats just me.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:25, 30 December 2008 (MST)
I was thinking something a little similar. Like, DnD Other ---> Tome Page Link ---> Article page Link ---> Article section Link. And, yes, dividing them by the article sections. Come to think of it, I need to slap in the tables from the class articles that have been put up... -- Genowhirl 09:28, 30 December 2008 (MST)
Could even just make it a subpage of this one if needed. I.e. Tome of Fiends (3.5e Sourcebook)/Morality and Fiends. etc.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:59, 30 December 2008 (MST)
I made DnD Sourcebooks and added this there. If one wants specifically just Frank and K material then he/she can use a dpl to get that information. --Green Dragon 04:05, 22 March 2009 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

When this article first went up it had extremely good content from its source, but was badly-formatted. It's now formatted very well, in a way that's true to the source. Even italics, underlines, and bold have been corrected to be the same as the original document. I think the content speaks for itself. Surgo 14:14, 30 March 2009 (MDT)

I also agree that this source-book should be made into a FA. It is formated well and if you ask me up to the standard of complete mage or races of the dragon with the exception of "Chapter 5: Campaigning on the Lower Planes". ----Milo High-Hill 17:58, 16 October 2010 (MDT)
+1. I support this being made into a Featured article Jwguy 05:37, 8 April 2011 (MDT)

Comment — Many of this sourcebook's subpages are incomplete, in disrepair, etc and have been so for some time. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors