| Author |
 Topic  |
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 03:59:45
|
Set's issues with Apep are a regional issue with the Egyptian pantheon. Apep doesn't give a crap about Lathander or Surya or Pholtus or Pelor, he just wants to kill Ra and eat him, erasing his presence in all worlds ruled over by the Egyptian pantheon. Set, for all his evil, has been Ra's defender since the pantheon rose; he probably hates Apep more than he hates Osiris. Also, Set actually does have parents - Geb and Nut. He's Ozzy's brother.
Asmodeus probably predates Set. The Baatorians had already abandoned Baator when Asmodeus fell, leaving it empty. Set probably moved Ankhwugat to Baator when Nephthys divorced him.
Gonna be honest, a lot of this sounds like complexity for the sake of complexity. |
Edited by - LordofBones on 15 Feb 2018 04:07:55 |
 |
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2428 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 15:24:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Gonna be honest, a lot of this sounds like complexity for the sake of complexity.
Well, yeah. But also, it won't do to jump too far away from it, because that's where any such setting naturally rolls.
In-Universe, you only need enough of players reluctant to cooperate in moderate fog of war: they all have to react on glimpses of each other's moves and have no way to be sure about the purpose of those moves, and the net of feedback loops and strange attractors adds up.
Give it time, and the big picture will be so chaotic that any visible patterns below ultimate objectives, but above events too short to be affected by chaos are most likely to be observer's illusions and delusions (whether accidental or deliberate).
On the out-of Universe side - Ed clearly likes the "Gambit Pileup" based plot building - he even wrote an article (Ed Says: Secret Societies) about it - and this allows somewhat strange outcomes indeed. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 15 Feb 2018 15:41:53 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 19:20:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Set's issues with Apep are a regional issue with the Egyptian pantheon. Apep doesn't give a crap about Lathander or Surya or Pholtus or Pelor, he just wants to kill Ra and eat him, erasing his presence in all worlds ruled over by the Egyptian pantheon. Set, for all his evil, has been Ra's defender since the pantheon rose; he probably hates Apep more than he hates Osiris. Also, Set actually does have parents - Geb and Nut. He's Ozzy's brother.
Asmodeus probably predates Set. The Baatorians had already abandoned Baator when Asmodeus fell, leaving it empty. Set probably moved Ankhwugat to Baator when Nephthys divorced him.
Gonna be honest, a lot of this sounds like complexity for the sake of complexity.
While I completely get a LOT of what I do - marrying all the different folklore and pantheons (even ones from other IPs) - steps on a lot of the in-mythos lore, I assume all 'religions' are world-specific, and the details change from world to world. For example, on Earth we have one set of history for the Egyptian Pantheon, and on Toril we have a somewhat different set of history for the Pharonic Pantheon... yet both are the same group. The lore is still viable, because its world-specific. The only lore that matters to ALL settings is the lore that predates all settings - the Time Before Time, when there were no worlds (Crystal Spheres) and there probably weren't any real pantheons ether (just 'cliques' of gods that hung together, mostly through 'family ties').
The funny thing is, I've already connected fiends to my proto-Pharonic pantheon, via Baast and the Raksasha. Unfortunately, those are demons (or perhaps ex-demons, now... hard to say when something changes like that). However, the whole 'Good vs Evil' thing didn't come about until AFTER the Dawn War (which was about Law vs Chaos). Many lawful 'evil' gods sided with the forces of good during that war (Gruumsh did, which implies he may have been more lawful at one time, or at least neutral). Before that war, anything below the 'god tier' was a celestial, including Asmodeus and the Rakshasa. In fact, nearly all of this terminology is from a mortal perspective - Asian folklore doesn't really different between the good and bad versions of stuff; like mortals, its mostly on an individual basis.
Thus, in my Overcosmology (or 'Monomyth', if you prefer), I try to come up with a more generic, universal set of myths that mostly work within all the myths and folklore (and D&D lore). It especially works well for the Pharonics, because we already have a canon example of two sets of mythos for the same group. Also, when researching Set last night, he turns out he's had children with two goddesses from non-Egyptian pantheons! He actually has a RW history of 'mucking about' within other pantheons!!! He's the ultimate interloper!
The Asmodeus/Set connection is easy to make, because they are both portrayed as the 'right-hand man' of God(s), who then, over time, became 'evil'. And not so much through their own doing, as it as just their portfolios (or 'job', as in Asmodeus' case) made mortals view them that way. I see them both as 'amoral', rather than immoral. They don't care who gets hurt, so long as they get the job done. They would scoff at 'good', because good is inefficient. In Asmodeus's case, this might stem from his proximity to Ahriman (who also wasn't truly evil - he held the universe together with his 'good' brother and created the Great Wheel, sacrificing his own mobility/identity in the process).
Only a mortal would view sacrificing millions (billions?) of mortals to gain a victory in something as 'evil'. In fact, RW, I can think of plenty of people (corporate & political) who feel the same way, so even mortals can be like that (quite easily, apparently). 'Evil' is really just 'callous'. Both Asmodeus and Set fit that bill. They are VERY similar. Both are also often portrayed with beast-heads (which is neither here-nor-there - just an item of interest).
And if set is Typhon (as Wikipedia implies), then maybe Echidna was the Greek name for Tiamat. She would then be his second wife (or consort, more likely), after Nephthys ditched him (so Nephthys is pre-Dawn War, and Tiamat perhaps post-Dawn War). Post Godswar, he is alone (even Tiamat couldn't stand the way he chewed his food LOL).
Back to Asmodeus - Spinning Set as an aspect of Asmodeus works on so many levels, but then we start getting into this whole fudgery of 'deific tiers'. I have two possible ways of reconciling that (and bear in mind, I am still just playing with all these ideas in my head, nothing more) - that Asmodeus is the child of Set, which fixes just one thing (a God creates a celestial, which DOES make sense). Someone had to have originally created Asmodeus (maybe... I'm still working on the whole 'planer natives' aspect of my overcosmology). I don't like that AT ALL though. I really don't like either of them being in the father/son role - it doesn't fit them.
The other way of dealing with the 'power-level' thing is to say that only the First (Elder) Gods were actual Gods, at first. This would include both original Estelar and Primordials, as well as perhaps a few Primal spirits and probably even the Obyriths (who are technically 'outside' the hierarchy altogether). They would have happened 'spontaneously', which is just a fancy way of saying they were concepts in the minds of Supernals made sentient. Then those beings would have been able to create their own beings - a 'lesser' tier, and it would have required two (or more) of them together to do so (although physical procreation was not yet a thing -this would be more like two {or more} balls of energy merging, and a new entity splitting-off from the merger). So EVERYTHING below this 'Elder God' tier would be a Celestial, although the first may be able to be called Elder (arch?) Celestials. This is where Asmodeus and set fit-in. Over the course of eons, some of these would have recieved adulation from some of their peers and underlings, and later mortals, and rose the the rank of 'god' (although, as I keep saying, all these tiers/ranks/ whatever are mostly just a mortal construct - divine beings {outsiders} all know their 'pecking order' instantly, and that actually changes depending on the circumstances, like where in the universe they are at the time, and whats involved in the 'conflict').
Thus, Asmodeus is Asmodeus, and he is what he always is/was - the supreme arch-Celestial of the multiverse ('fiend' is also amortal construct, although most planer folk have adopted it). 'Set' would be an aspect of his, that he's used in a few pantheons, where he receives worship as a God. In many cultures, it would frowned-upon to worship 'The Devil', so 'Set' is his 'little white lie' so people can pretend they're not worshiping him.
And note I used the term 'multiverse', which only describes the D&Dverse here. Other Multiverse's also exist, and Asmodeus may not be the 'big bad' there, hence the term Omniverse. In the Marvel Universe, Mephisto has supplanted Asmodeus as the 'big bad'. Beings rarely ever try to invade other multiverses. It is possible, but you'd have to have completely taken over EVERYTHING in your own multiverse to even consider such an undertaking. So if you want D&D Asmodeus to have a conversation with Marvel Mephisto, that can happen, but it would have to occur outside of both universes, probably in the Ordial Plane, or what Marvel Comics calls The Plane of Manifestations. Sadly, in the Marvelverse, Asmodeus became a demon, and subordinate of Mephisto. So many possibilities in an Omniverse.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Feb 2018 19:28:25 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 20:00:04
|
*Ugh* - sorry about the 'wall of text' - its so hard for me to 'boil down' my points, since so many of them are based off other musings of mine. Apologies all around.
As for Set's lineage, it fits perfectly within my own hierarchy. Nu (Nun) = the Primal Chaos from whence GOD (or rather, the consciousness of the universe itself), sprang forth. This immediately split into the Divine Masculine & Divine Feminine, or Shu & Tefnut. These are still 'abstracts'. These two create the Supernals - the most basic Laws of the Universe, and they are in pairs (six created by the Divine Masculine, and six by the Divine Feminine), and are thus normally portrayed as pairs of males and females (although that very concept didn't exist at that time). Two of them were Ymir and Gaea - The Prime Material (Firmament), and the 'Lifeforce' (Aeon). In the Pharonic pantheon these Supernals would be known as Geb & Nut. Along with the other Supernals they create the Elder Gods (Primordials & Estelar). Once again, we are talking about the living embodiment of primal concepts here, so you could just as easily say those gods arose 'spontaneously' from the void, because it amounts to the same exact thing.
Thus Set's creation fits within the D&D Monomyth I've created. 
the whole concept of 'deity' would not arise until much later, when some of these beings began to work on the Creatori - The Creator races. Although, the idea of 'ascendance through adulation' was probably first discovered by the Jôtunbrûd, which included the primordial giants (Jotuns), as well as the dwarves and dragons. After the 'great war' between those three groups, they became know as the Procreators, because they pre-existed the Creatori. These, BTW, would be Celestial/planer versions of those three groups, so they are mostly nonexistent anymore. The ones we know today are almost universally of the terrestrial variety, of MUCH lesser status. So now, when folks used the more ancient version of 'Jôtunbrûd', they are referring to just the planer giants (Jotuns), which was what was left of the group post Godswar.
I may come up with yet another term for that earlier group, to avoid confusion (Jôtani?) 'Gigantes' may be better, but still somewhat misleading. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Feb 2018 20:06:50 |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 22:01:22
|
Ok - so - however you want to imagine devils and demons and fiends and Mystra and Asmodeus is fine.
Back to the question at hand.
Why horns on horned rings?
Any thoughts other than some fiend connection? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 02:14:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think it's just an aesthetics thing. It's something distinctive.
This is a distinct possibility.
Pretty much the only magic item creator that was big on aesthetics back in the old days was Ed, who wrote this ring up. Still, to me it is a bit too specific to have no purpose or meaning.
In my mind this means that it could possibly one of Ed's little hints that we never thought to consider. Possibly a clue about Halaster. Possibly something else. Try as I might I was not able to come up with anything convincing so I was hoping the hive mind might. :) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 02:42:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think it's just an aesthetics thing. It's something distinctive.
This is a distinct possibility.
Pretty much the only magic item creator that was big on aesthetics back in the old days was Ed, who wrote this ring up. Still, to me it is a bit too specific to have no purpose or meaning.
In my mind this means that it could possibly one of Ed's little hints that we never thought to consider. Possibly a clue about Halaster. Possibly something else. Try as I might I was not able to come up with anything convincing so I was hoping the hive mind might. :)
My thinking is that so long as it's a ring, there's not much you can do to make it distinctive. Sure, you can make it be this metal, set with this gemstone, cut in such-and-such a way and flanked by something else -- but that's like 90% of the rings out there. The rest are either plain, or they've got some patterned etched into them. There's only so much you can do with a circular chunk of material... Doing something utterly non-standard is pretty much the only way to make it distinctive. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1536 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 03:55:33
|
| This being Halaster, he probably thought it was amusing. A ring with protrusions poking out of it is going to be pretty uncomfortable for your other fingers. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 04:22:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Ok - so - however you want to imagine devils and demons and fiends and Mystra and Asmodeus is fine.
Back to the question at hand.
Why horns on horned rings?
Any thoughts other than some fiend connection?
The funny thing is, despite all my ramblings above, I decided against fiends, and still think it would be more approriate to connect them to minotaurs.
Which I already said.
Other than that, what else with horns could they possibly be connected to? Fiends teleport, and minotaurs 'can find their way around'. I can't think of any other association.
The Mythal itself was original Elven, and 'The Horned God' is a fey deity (Master of the Wild Hunt), and would probably translate easily into an early aspect of Corellon... but thats really reaching.
Some dragons have horns. So do unicorns. Both creatures are heavily associated with magic (I can see powdered unicorn horn being used to 'bypass' certain anti-magical effects).
But, it probably is just an aesthetic thing - he isn't sometimes called 'the Fiend of Undermountain" for nothing, so creating evil-looking rings would just add to his mystique. I can definitely see him liking that. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 05:02:06
|
| I should like to make it clear that I'm not adverse to the idea that the horns have some significance... I just don't see what it could possibly be, and I also don't see a reason to assume significance, beyond the fact that they are something rather different. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 07:56:09
|
The so-called Horned Hand or Sign of the Horns is said to be, among other things, a powerful gesture for warding evil. Perhaps this is invoked within the construction of these Horned Rings.
Perhaps Halaster actually used these distinctive rings for activating or bypassing spells (magic mouth, alarm, glyphs of warding, programmed illusion, contingency, Xult's magical doom, etc) which are triggered by visual tokens.
Or as some sort of reusable material-somatic component which must be worn when casting certain custom/modified spells or when using certain custom/modified magical items.
Or as a distinctive signet for simple impressioning on writings. Dip in ink, press on page ...
Or as a kind of mechanical "key" for opening certain locks (like, say, those on his spellbooks). Place the horn points within indentations and twist open ...
Or even as a physical representation of his own personal wizard mark. I do not believe it is actually described anywhere in Realmslore (surprisingly) - and if it isn't then why not have it look something like a ring with two horns?
As mentioned somewhere above, minotaurs have an instinctive ability to navigate labyrinths (and are immune to the maze spell in some editions). These rings teleport through the Underdark, arguably one of the biggest mazes in the D&D cosmos. So the horns might be symbolic of minotaurs, not of fiends. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 16 Feb 2018 08:00:37 |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 17:13:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The so-called Horned Hand or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_horns
Perhaps Halaster actually used these distinctive rings for activating or bypassing spells (magic mouth, alarm, glyphs of warding, programmed illusion, contingency, Xult's magical doom, etc) which are triggered by visual tokens.
Or as some sort of reusable material-somatic component which must be worn when casting certain custom/modified spells or when using certain custom/modified magical items.
Or as a kind of mechanical "key" for opening certain locks (like, say, those on his spellbooks). Place the horn points within indentations and twist open ...
Or even as a physical representation of his own personal wizard mark. I do not believe it is actually described anywhere in Realmslore (surprisingly) - and if it isn't then why not have it look something like a ring with two horns?
I like this idea. It had never occurred to me that Halaster doesn't have a sigil - and yes, this is very strange considering we have sigils for the 3rd level apprentice at Darkhold :P
Were this the case, there's no reason the rings couldn't fill multiple of these ideas. Function as ward tokens, be linked to other magics, etc.
In fact, the ability to bypass all the teleportation restrictions in Undermountain is already very similar to a ward token. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 21:42:39
|
I could have SWORN I saw a sigil for Halaster somewhere, and IIRC correctly, it was extremely similar to Elminster's. Don't ask me where... I can narrow it down to 'something I read in the past 30 years'. 
I am not adverse to the rings doing 'other things' (I like the very simple idea of Halaster using it as a key... I saw that in some movie...). I just think the 'Horned' part was meant to be more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
As mentioned somewhere above, minotaurs have an instinctive ability to navigate labyrinths (and are immune to the maze spell in some editions). These rings teleport through the Underdark, arguably one of the biggest mazes in the D&D cosmos. So the horns might be symbolic of minotaurs, not of fiends.
Ayup.
But apparently, you were the only one who understood where I was trying to go with that; its a 'related magic' kind of thing. In the old MM's we sometimes had uses for body-parts of the critters, and it was always tied to their innate abilities. I was trying to do something along those lines. From the 2e Monster manual -
quote:
Minotaur components are sometimes used in spells and potions, and might be used in magical items involving strength, location, and misdirection.
.
Not that someone like Ed Greenwood would ever consider make something 'flavorful'. {sarcasm} |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Feb 2018 21:46:53 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Halaster & Horns
