| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 25 Mar 2011 : 02:12:05
Is he now permanently dead or just his material form? If the latter, is he now able to comeback since 100 years has elapsed since his defeat t the hands of Drizzt and friends.
P.S. Drizzt banished him twice? How was Ertuu able to come back the 2nd time before the 100 year limit? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 31 Mar 2011 : 19:47:10
quote:
Originally posted by AleksanderTheGreat
quote:
Such a definition doesn't really apply...that is only the ruling of certain versions of Dungeons and Dragons and isn't the "truth" in all other versions.
It's not some homebrew that I came up with. It's in official books, Fiendish Codex II for example. Therefore it's the truth. You can call it retconing previous lore about demon lords and archdevils but it's still there (although I would call it an addition).
BTW. How does it work? New lore replaces old lore if they contradict?
It works very well that new lore replaces old lore...if everyone is using the new lore. 
I don't. Thus my argument that some folks simply don't have or accept new lore. I honestly find it hard to run with anything after the Time of Troubles in my own idea of how I want the Forgotten Realms to be...especially since the very man that created the FR hasn't come to that point yet in his own campaign...
Just because it is printed and published doesn't make it best.
So I can easily submit to your idea that New printed versions trump older...but only in a sense that it works when everyone is using the same materials. |
| AleksanderTheGreat |
Posted - 31 Mar 2011 : 14:34:56
quote:
Such a definition doesn't really apply...that is only the ruling of certain versions of Dungeons and Dragons and isn't the "truth" in all other versions.
It's not some homebrew that I came up with. It's in official books, Fiendish Codex II for example. Therefore it's the truth. You can call it retconing previous lore about demon lords and archdevils but it's still there (although I would call it an addition).
BTW. How does it work? New lore replaces old lore if they contradict? |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 31 Mar 2011 : 00:38:22
Gonna go ahead and add that in my realms, Errtu's status is "dead with skull mounted on a wall". |
| Ranak |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 20:36:49
...
Last I checked Ertuu's status was "It's Complicated" |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 05:07:42
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Actually, pit fiends and balors have always been about on par with one another in rules stats in older editions.
Balors are supposed to be better than Pit Fiends in 3rd/3.5e, though I wouldn't know about anything more recent.
Well, sort of better. The Balor has superior SLAs and a generally superior statblock. The Pit Fiend has Wish, which despite being 1/year is still exceedingly powerful. Additionally, because of how their mechanics match up, the Balor is at a disadvantage. It's unable to completely overcome regeneration or the Pit Fiend's SR and the Pit Fiend has stronger damage delivery in melee. So while the Balor might be better, the Pit Fiend is more suited to taking down a Balor should it come to blows (especially if it uses a Wish).
In story aspects, the Balor is supposed to have more raw power, while the Pit Fiend has better tactics.
Against players it's a different story, and can vary widely depending on the party and what they have available. If you're summoning and/or binding them, though, then the Balor is superior.
If talking about the average pit fiend, yes. Keep in mind this particular pit fiend is a personal servant of the Devil god of sin, A duke of the nine hells answerable only to the archdevils themselves. Dor'Crae nearly wet himself when he realized how badly he underestimated Valindra. He figured she was just calling a regular old Devil and did not think her capable of calling such a creature.
Comparing a duke of the nine hells and personal servant of Asmodeus to a regular pit fiend is like comparing Drizzt to a regular drow warrior.
The Abyss equivalent would be a powerful demon lord, ranked just under the Demon princes themselves.
I thought I was pretty clear by what I quoted that I was simply talking about how the two (Pit Fiend and Balor) stack up against each other in 3rd edition. Introducing advanced HD versions of either will obviously change the situation, but as long as their HD progression is roughly equal all the way along and one side doesn't receive a larger boost than the other, they should retain approximately the same level of ability in comparison with one another. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 04:34:28
True, but now we're just splitting hairs. These are clearly both advanced members of their respective types, but by how much? We don't know definitively how "advanced" Errtu himself is, because we don't have much description to go by, and his appearances in earlier novels didn't really give a full measure of his power, IMO. Likewise, he might be nearly as high-ranked as a demon lord, but if it has no bearing on the story, it's probably not mentioned. He mostly just summoned other demons, an sat back to watch- that's not really an accurate portrayal of how powerful he is, just of his tactics. He might very well be as powerful as the pit fiend was, but just didn't USE it. Only Bob would know for sure. Just saying. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 15:21:28
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Actually, pit fiends and balors have always been about on par with one another in rules stats in older editions.
Balors are supposed to be better than Pit Fiends in 3rd/3.5e, though I wouldn't know about anything more recent.
Well, sort of better. The Balor has superior SLAs and a generally superior statblock. The Pit Fiend has Wish, which despite being 1/year is still exceedingly powerful. Additionally, because of how their mechanics match up, the Balor is at a disadvantage. It's unable to completely overcome regeneration or the Pit Fiend's SR and the Pit Fiend has stronger damage delivery in melee. So while the Balor might be better, the Pit Fiend is more suited to taking down a Balor should it come to blows (especially if it uses a Wish).
In story aspects, the Balor is supposed to have more raw power, while the Pit Fiend has better tactics.
Against players it's a different story, and can vary widely depending on the party and what they have available. If you're summoning and/or binding them, though, then the Balor is superior.
If talking about the average pit fiend, yes. Keep in mind this particular pit fiend is a personal servant of the Devil god of sin, A duke of the nine hells answerable only to the archdevils themselves. Dor'Crae nearly wet himself when he realized how badly he underestimated Valindra. He figured she was just calling a regular old Devil and did not think her capable of calling such a creature.
Comparing a duke of the nine hells and personal servant of Asmodeus to a regular pit fiend is like comparing Drizzt to a regular drow warrior.
The Abyss equivalent would be a powerful demon lord, ranked just under the Demon princes themselves. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 15:07:16
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
Demons and Devils are LIARS...
Demons, maybe. Devils(the smart ones, at least, so most of them) don't lie. They may come up with very...interesting and creative interpretations of the truth, but lying? That's so...demonic. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 10:30:04
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Actually, pit fiends and balors have always been about on par with one another in rules stats in older editions.
Balors are supposed to be better than Pit Fiends in 3rd/3.5e, though I wouldn't know about anything more recent.
Well, sort of better. The Balor has superior SLAs and a generally superior statblock. The Pit Fiend has Wish, which despite being 1/year is still exceedingly powerful. Additionally, because of how their mechanics match up, the Balor is at a disadvantage. It's unable to completely overcome regeneration or the Pit Fiend's SR and the Pit Fiend has stronger damage delivery in melee. So while the Balor might be better, the Pit Fiend is more suited to taking down a Balor should it come to blows (especially if it uses a Wish).
In story aspects, the Balor is supposed to have more raw power, while the Pit Fiend has better tactics.
Against players it's a different story, and can vary widely depending on the party and what they have available. If you're summoning and/or binding them, though, then the Balor is superior. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 09:39:56
Demons and Devils are LIARS... |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:51:30
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
He was never given an affiliation, but it is possible that he has one and we just haven't seen it. It wasn't relevant to the story in previous novels, so there was no reason for it. But he WAS mentioned as being nearly a lord in his own right, as others have stated, so I don't see why he couldn't be close in power to the pit fiend. RAS may have simply chosen to deal with him in the way he did for story purposes, but that does not necessarily make him less powerful in comparison to a devil. Like I said, that was all written many years ago, and there's no way to know what sort of level he'd be at in current rules, so it's just not a question that can be answered at this time. Forthat matter, I'm wondering why it's even considered important at all, beyond his banishment being almost up. I doubt we'll see him again, in any case. Drizzt trounced him pretty decisively the last time, so his days as a major enemy seem over.
I can think of a reason. He was not portrayed as being that powerful by Bob, while the pit fiend was portrayed as being much more powerful and a personal servant of the god of sin.
Makes perfect sense to me that he would be that much more powerful. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:48:56
He was never given an affiliation, but it is possible that he has one and we just haven't seen it. It wasn't relevant to the story in previous novels, so there was no reason for it. But he WAS mentioned as being nearly a lord in his own right, as others have stated, so I don't see why he couldn't be close in power to the pit fiend. RAS may have simply chosen to deal with him in the way he did for story purposes, but that does not necessarily make him less powerful in comparison to a devil. Like I said, that was all written many years ago, and there's no way to know what sort of level he'd be at in current rules, so it's just not a question that can be answered at this time. Forthat matter, I'm wondering why it's even considered important at all, beyond his banishment being almost up. I doubt we'll see him again, in any case. Drizzt trounced him pretty decisively the last time, so his days as a major enemy seem over. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:44:37
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'll agree with that, that a Duke of Hell should be more powerful. However, I don't see that Ertuu should increase in power relative to an opponent like Drizzt for the simple matter that when they first encountered each other, he was able to be dealt with by Drizzt in the manner written.
I have to agree that Ertuu was a MAJOR let down for his particular kind of demon.
Agreed. The manner written seemed to me to be sheer luck. he just happened to have the exact sword needed to take out a balor in one swing. The second time around was much more telling. He needed to be ganged up on by multiple powerful characters with epic weapons. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:41:08
I'll agree with that, that a Duke of Hell should be more powerful. However, I don't see that Ertuu should increase in power relative to an opponent like Drizzt for the simple matter that when they first encountered each other, he was able to be dealt with by Drizzt in the manner written.
I have to agree that Ertuu was a MAJOR let down for his particular kind of demon. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:38:49
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Actually, pit fiends and balors have always been about on par with one another in rules stats in older editions. I see no reason why that would change in 4th ed. So, to go by your own argument, if Errtu were to be written into current rules, he would probably be close in power to that pit fiend. We just have not seen him in almost two and a half editions, so we really can't say HOW he would be shown now. Which is why asking that question is sort of moot until we see him in a novel. Errtu is not affiliated with any particular demon lord, but he may have enough power in his own right that he has no need to be. This has already been suggested, so just because he was depicted as "less powerful" under older rules than a pit fiend that was written under the current rules does not mean he would be so now. He might have grown in power since then, or perhaps a current appearance would account for current game-edition rules. We just do not know.
Normal Pit Fiends yes. Not personal servants of the god of Sin Asmodeus. They would and should be ranked just below Archdevils in terms of personal power. The book made it very clear that this was no ordinary pit fiend that was summoned, but a Lieutenant of Asmodeus himself.
Errtu is not a Demon lord just ranked under the Demon Princes. he is not even a Demon lord. He is a powerful Balor, yet mere, with no affiliation that we know of. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:36:01
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Then why get involved in talks about things from novels and characters going on in the current edition rules?
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well.
Ahhh...so I should just shut my mouth and not talk simply because of what edition of the game I prefer?
Please refer me to the 1e source that speaks on the Bloodwar...
No, you can comment all you like. However, the vein of the conversation was regarding why a high ranking Duke of the nine hells seemed much more powerful than Errtu, a balor from the abyss. Your comments suggested that a devil is not so far ahead of him based on 1e rules, which no longer apply.
This particular devil is far ahead of a mere balor in 4e rules(Or 2e rules)
My actual point was that, to me, it seemed wrong. And I defined what position I was coming from. A point can be discussed on numerous different levels without degenerating into a rules edition quandry.
If Ertuu comes back after a 100 years seeking revenge; then the author MUST keep the same level of relative power between antagonists if that was established in previous literature...
Or perhap suddenly Ertuu is just irrelevant.
Errtu was never all that powerfully portrayed to begin with. The idea that a duke of the nine hells seemed much more powerful(And should) should not be an issue. Errtu was a mere Balor and not a greater servant of Demogorgan or any other superpower. The Duke in question was. To me, that perfectly explains why he would and should seem much more powerful. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:35:51
Actually, pit fiends and balors have always been about on par with one another in rules stats in older editions. I see no reason why that would change in 4th ed. So, to go by your own argument, if Errtu were to be written into current rules, he would probably be close in power to that pit fiend. We just have not seen him in almost two and a half editions, so we really can't say HOW he would be shown now. Which is why asking that question is sort of moot until we see him in a novel. Errtu is not affiliated with any particular demon lord, but he may have enough power in his own right that he has no need to be. This has already been suggested, so just because he was depicted as "less powerful" under older rules than a pit fiend that was written under the current rules does not mean he would be so now. He might have grown in power since then, or perhaps a current appearance would account for current game-edition rules. We just do not know. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:29:12
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Then why get involved in talks about things from novels and characters going on in the current edition rules?
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well.
Ahhh...so I should just shut my mouth and not talk simply because of what edition of the game I prefer?
Please refer me to the 1e source that speaks on the Bloodwar...
No, you can comment all you like. However, the vein of the conversation was regarding why a high ranking Duke of the nine hells seemed much more powerful than Errtu, a balor from the abyss. Your comments suggested that a devil is not so far ahead of him based on 1e rules, which no longer apply.
This particular devil is far ahead of a mere balor in 4e rules(Or 2e rules)
My actual point was that, to me, it seemed wrong. And I defined what position I was coming from. A point can be discussed on numerous different levels without degenerating into a rules edition quandry.
If Ertuu comes back after a 100 years seeking revenge; then the author MUST keep the same level of relative power between antagonists if that was established in previous literature...
Or perhap suddenly Ertuu is just irrelevant. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:23:53
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Then why get involved in talks about things from novels and characters going on in the current edition rules?
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well.
Ahhh...so I should just shut my mouth and not talk simply because of what edition of the game I prefer?
Please refer me to the 1e source that speaks on the Bloodwar...
No, you can comment all you like. However, the vein of the conversation was regarding why a high ranking Duke of the nine hells seemed much more powerful than Errtu, a balor from the abyss. Your comments suggested that a devil is not so far ahead of him based on 1e rules, which no longer apply.
This particular devil is far ahead of a mere balor in 4e rules(Or 2e rules)
|
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:21:34
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Calm down.
Was not meant to be an insult. Look at it in context. The conversation was regarding the Duke of the 9 Hells and that he seemed much more threatening than Errtu. That was written under 4e viewpoint. Under today's rules and viewpoints, a Duke of the nine hells would utterly mop the floor with multiple Errtu's.
Authors are required due to the shared world nature of the realm they are writing in to follow certain things to a degree, including the updated rules.
Bringing 1e Rules into the conversation regarding how much more threatening a Duke of the nine hells is than Errtu was in a 4e book to me, makes no sense. See what I am getting at?
No.
The current books we are talking about(Comparing Errtu to a duke of the 9 hells), and the current status or Errtu are 4e. Therefore, 1e does not apply.
What 4e material has Ertuu been in?
none, however, the current question was regarding his status in the current timeline, which falls well into 4e |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:20:50
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I'd like to mention that Errtu has not been in any of the 4th era books, so a comparison cannot be made regarding his appearances, which were both in 1ts and 2nd era books. His stats in later editions would certainly make him much more of a threat now- should he actually appear again. He might almost be a match for that pit fiend in Gauntlegrym, but we can't know unless he makes an appearance in the current time-line!
Nope. But the current question is regarding his 100 year banishment and status in the current year and falls under 4e.
The person in question was asking why the Devil From Gauntlgrym seemed so much more threatening than Errtu(Also 4e) and simply because this high ranking duke devil ranked far above a non-affiliated Balor from the abyss. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 06:02:50
Well, there's an alternative for those who cannot defer to Ertuu's multi-edition madness in the novels ... simply make RAS sit down and rewrite his (growing pile of) novels every time a new D&D comes out. It's good to have a little handwavium in your diet. Of course this practice would cost money, delay novel (re)releases, and eventually drive some authors to suicide, but hey, such is the price of art, no?
An even worse alternative would be to cull and recall novels once their content is obsoleted. Rarity and value (to collectors) would increase, but overall this practice bears the noxious odour of censorship and diminishes access to Realmslore for everybody. The Realms are always changing; some people are content to watch the current season, but many fans prefer to have access to the entire collection. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 05:50:00
My point simply being that the rules, while not seriously relevant, must only be considered in the context of how particular monsters were viewed by writers when the various editions of the game were "in play" so to speak.
Novels being novels, the rules really have no bearing on them...just looking at Drizzt as a prime example!
I guess I don't like being told my frame of reference is "irrelevant" or that I should "calm down" as if I'm some petulant child to be chided by someone thinking their own view is superior to my own and I can be easily dismissed in that manner... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 05:49:51
True enough, Arik, but he was also listed in the Villains' Lorebook, so his stats actually are sort of relevant to the discussion. What worked in earlier editions for the fiction would not necessarily work now. Rules and expectations of lore have changed since he was originally written. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 05:02:02
I'm pretty sure the Blood War was a 2E innovation, and primarily constrained to the planescape material, though yes some BW adventure would sometimes spill over onto the Realms or other worlds. I can't recall any specific instances of real devil-vs-demon conflict driving a plot or army anywhere through 1E, though I suppose it might have been invented (if not named) in any one of the magazine articles. Mordenkainen's Codex (which first introduces the Blood War to 2E) might be a hint that Oerth has been somehow touched by this conflict, although the passages seem to indicate Mordenkainen's stunned surprise and morose horror when learning of the Blood War's existence and nature.
Uh, I thought it was already agreed that (the evolution of) game editions and rules were not particularly relevant in the novels; Ertuu is a fictional character from a fictional tale. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 04:04:10
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Then why get involved in talks about things from novels and characters going on in the current edition rules?
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well.
Ahhh...so I should just shut my mouth and not talk simply because of what edition of the game I prefer?
Please refer me to the 1e source that speaks on the Bloodwar... |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 04:03:10
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
Calm down.
Was not meant to be an insult. Look at it in context. The conversation was regarding the Duke of the 9 Hells and that he seemed much more threatening than Errtu. That was written under 4e viewpoint. Under today's rules and viewpoints, a Duke of the nine hells would utterly mop the floor with multiple Errtu's.
Authors are required due to the shared world nature of the realm they are writing in to follow certain things to a degree, including the updated rules.
Bringing 1e Rules into the conversation regarding how much more threatening a Duke of the nine hells is than Errtu was in a 4e book to me, makes no sense. See what I am getting at?
No.
The current books we are talking about(Comparing Errtu to a duke of the 9 hells), and the current status or Errtu are 4e. Therefore, 1e does not apply.
What 4e material has Ertuu been in? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 03:28:19
I'd like to mention that Errtu has not been in any of the 4th era books, so a comparison cannot be made regarding his appearances, which were both in 1ts and 2nd era books. His stats in later editions would certainly make him much more of a threat now- should he actually appear again. He might almost be a match for that pit fiend in Gauntlegrym, but we can't know unless he makes an appearance in the current time-line! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 01:09:42
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well.
And there are instances in the PLANESCAPE material which reference elements of the Blood War impacting upon the Realms also. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 00:14:42
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I wouldn't place the likes of Yeenoghu far above him in cunning or intelligence.
Many Demon Lords are only lords because of physical power...Devils tend to have more brains by my way of seeing things.
This is certainly correct. Devils are inherently stronger and smarter.
Otherwise, the blood war would have been over long ago. The Demons had an unlimited supply of beasts to send into the bloodwar, while the devils were very limited as they do not have an unending supply, yet the devils managed to stalemate them for millions of years.
Of course, that is all over now that Asmodeus used his personal power to move the entire Abyss below the elemental chaos, ending the blood war forever
Which to me is rubbish. The Forgotten Realms I enjoy doesn't even know anything about a "Blood War" and in fact there was no such thing until later.
I guess I'm just old and out of fashion in my views of what the Forgotten Realms is about.
Then why get involved in talks about things from novels and characters going on in the current edition rules?
The blood war was around at least in early 2nd edition, and I think I remember it being around in 1st as well. |
|
|
