They are both 1/2-demons, but 3rd edition treated 1/2-demons (tieflings) as PCs whereas 1st and 2nd-edition 1/2-demons (cambions) were NPCs. This meant that cambions were somewhat limited in the character classes they could choose, and the levels that they could achieve, depending upon the level of power of their demon parent, but they had more innate powers than tieflings do.
tieflings are not half-demons they are decendents of half-demons perhaps several generations removed from the demon ancestor. a cambion is a half-demon, and some like Iuz who were born from a greater demon gained greater personal power that to a cambion born to a lesser demon. just my .02 cents worth.
tieflings are not half-demons they are decendents of half-demons perhaps several generations removed from the demon ancestor. a cambion is a half-demon, and some like Iuz who were born from a greater demon gained greater personal power that to a cambion born to a lesser demon. just my .02 cents worth.
if thats is right, it make sense..
oh, btw, they had tieflings as character races in 2ed (planescape)
Yes, its right. Tieflings "merely" have lower planes ancestry, as mentioned. They explicitly do not have an infernal parent. The relationship is more distant than that.
Cambion and alu-demon were the original terms for what are now generally called "Half fiends". The half fiend template is quite distinct from being a tiefling.
Iuz is a Half-Fiend (aka cambion). Descendents of his would presumably be tieflings (depending on what you think of the fact that he's also a god).
Hrm Iuz has been tooling around for about a century time that means he could father a few generations of tieflings easily from his cultists and slaves. Eww.
Unless I'm totally making this up I think the original MM2 specified that a cambion was the offspring of a greater demon, maybe even a demon prince, and a mortal.
I don't know it is helps or not, but here is what 3rd Edition said about cambions.
Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, page 195-196 wrote:
Although the term “cambion” is often applied to any humanoid half-fiend, a true cambion springs from a union between a powerful tanar’ri father and a planetouched mother—usually a tiefling. Spurned even by their demon fathers, cambions use their alternate form ability to hide among humanoids and gather information that they can exchange for the power and prestige they crave. Despite their power, cambions are freaks and outcasts among both of their parent races. Never accepted in human society and only poorly tolerated in the Abyss, they are bitter and hateful toward all creatures. Because of their natural stealth and detachment, cambions who dwell in the Abyss serve as assassins in the Blood War. Others become bodyguards or lieutenants to the demons who fathered them, or serve as advisors to balors or other high-ranking demons. Cambions inhabit the Infinite Layers of the Abyss, though some also walk the areas of the Material Plane where they were born.
As mentioned by someone above regarding fiendish ancestry, the 3rd Edition tiefling is "planetouched," meaning a creature that can trace his or her bloodline back to an outsider, usually a fiend (or celestial).
The 3rd Edition Monster Manual defines a half-fiend as a union between a devil or a demon and a mortal. So, Iuz seems to fit in as a half-fiend in this rules set, as Vormaerin notes above. Unless Iggwilv was planetouched, Iuz may not have technically been a true cambion in 3rd Edition.
It looks like 2nd Edition referred to cambions as lesser tanar'ri (along with bar-Iguras and Succubi). The 2nd Edition spell anti-animal shell specifically called cambions 'crossbreeds.'
I don't know if my rambling helps or detracts. This is just stuff I know as far as RAW goes.
Faces of Evil: The Fiends defined tieflings as humans with 1/4 or less fiendish ancestry. The child of a cambion and a human would be a tiefling. It's not clear what the child of a cambion and a tiefling would be. An unusually potent tiefling, probably.
[In 2E] Cambions were specifically male half-tanar'ri born to mortal women, with the particular type of tanar'ri father (lesser, greater, true) determining what type of cambion it was (major, baron/marquis).
In 1E/2E they were a specific race of semi-demons that had some stealth abilities (even while wearing armor) and some spells. The fluff description from EttDP in the post above is quite accurate.
There used to be a Marquis Cambion template on dicefreaks but i can't find it. Anyways Iuz would definately be a Marquis Cambion.
IMHO in 3E normal cambions are best represented as variant half-fiends:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Jacobs:
Because D&D already has rules for half-fiends. Both alu-demons and cambions are just humans with the half-fiend template.
Put another way, not all half-fiend humans are cambions or alu-demons, but all cambions and alu-fiends are half-fiends.
I was, however, tempted to put in an altered set of abilities for alu-demons and cambions (similar to how we're handling lemorian half-fiends in the Savage Tide Adventure Path), but in the end there just wasn't enough room in the article. BUT! There's certainly room in this thread! So what follows is my "quick and dirty" rules for creating cambions and alu-demons (drawing upon their 1st edition incarnations) by altering the half-fiend template slightly:
CAMBION
Armor: Natural armor improves by +4 instead of by +1
Speed: A cambion has no wings, but gains a +10 ft. bonus to its base land speed.
Full Attack: A cambion gains claw attacks as a half-fiend, but does not gain a bite attack.
Special Attacks: Cambions cannot smite good.
Spell-Like Abilities: Replace darkness 3/day with detect magic at will. Replace desecrate with cause fear 3/day. Replace unholy blight with levitate 3/day. Replace contagion with polymorph.
Abilities: Str +4, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +2, Cha +2
ALU-DEMON
Armor: Natural armor improves by +4 instead of by +1.
Full Attack: An alu-demon gains no claw or bite attack. She does gain a special touch attack usable once per round as a standard action. If she hits, she deals 1d6 points of negative energy damage plus additional damage equal to her Charisma bonus. She gains half of any damage inflicted in this manner back as healing.
Special Attacks: Alu-demons cannot smite good.
Spell-Like Abilities: Replace darkness 3/day with charm person 3/day. Replace desecrate with detect thoughts 3/day. Replace unholy blight with suggestion 3/day. Replace poison with polymorph 3/day (humanoid form only). Replace contagion with dimension door.
Abilities: Str +2, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +2, Cha +6
Planewalker's Encyclopedia has an entry for them: (with a picture from the 2E PS MC)
Quote:
A cambion (KAM-bee-on) is a male half-fiend, often the product of a succubus (or incubus) and a mortal. They can also be descended from other tanar'ri.
Some are more specific, counting only those half-fiends whose fathers were tanar'ri and whose mothers were tieflings as cambions.
It always puzzled me how EGG made Iuz a demi-God to begin with.
Demi-God is a "real" term, one that has meaning in our world. A demi-God is the offspring of a God and a mortal, I give you Hercules. A Demon Lord does not a God make.
Iuz's father, Grazz't, was a Demon Lord/Prince and his mother -- powerful though she is -- is a mortal. This does not make for a demi-God.
In Greek mythology there were only two types of Gods; Greater (the twelve Great Olympians) and Lesser (the other Gods). Apollo was one of the twelve and was the God of Light. Helios was not one of the twelve, but was a Lesser God -- the God of the Sun.
A third group of beings were the "Immortals."
Achilles mother, Thetis, was a Nereid -- a sea nymph. She was an immortal being -- but not a Goddess -- and his father was a mortal. Achilles was not a demi-God. Hercules was.
How, in canon (if ever), was Iuz's godship rationalized?
I give you Hercules. A Demon Lord does not a God make.
Actually, all demon lords were the equivalent of lesser gods in 1st edition, starting with Deities & Demigods and reiterated in the Manual of the Planes.
If Graz'zt could fight Raxivort (a lesser deity) to a draw, I'd say he was close enough.
Quote:
How, in canon (if ever), was Iuz's godship rationalized?
Regardless of his father's status Iuz was born a half-demonic mortal. He ascended to the status of demigod through a combination of means, including ritual use of the Soul Husks of the Howling Hills, which are believed to have been the corpses of powerful wizards or extraplanar beings. They enhance and sustain the cambion's power. Iuz also gained power from the worship of his orcish and human followers. It's also believed he may have inadvertently gained power from the ritual Zagig used to ascend to divinity himself in a sort of feedback effect.
That's about what I suspected. The "rules" were written that way.
I was speaking to what the "foundation" of original game play was based upon; our own mythology. In our own mythologies, Demon Lords were not and are not the equivalent of Lesser Gods. They lack a certain "essence," if you will. But, as you pointed out, Iuz wasn't born a demi-God. That was my misunderstanding.
His climbing to demi-God status, as you explained, is perfectly understandable. In the game, the potential for a mortal to do so was always there. And because of his birth, Iuz's potential to do so was greater than another mortal's would be.
Thanks for explaining it. Missed out on much of what you say. Played P&P Greyhawk in late 70's (Army). In early 80's became Over-the-Road truck driver. Playing just wasn't possible; never home. The game grew-up without me.
In our own mythologies, Demon Lords were not and are not the equivalent of Lesser Gods.
If you go by Hindu myth, they're much closer in power to greater deities. Look at Ravana, for example, who no god could kill. Or Raktabija, who of all the gods only Kali could defeat. Or Mahishasura, who defeated Indra and drove all the gods from heaven until Durga managed to defeat him.
What are the equivalents of demons in other mythologies? Typhoeus, who forced all the gods of Olympus to flee to Egypt in animal shape until Zeus bound him in a volcano. Apep, who Ra with the aid of Set manages to defeat after a fierce nightly battle... although sometimes Ra loses, and Apep devours Ra, causing an eclipse.
In what mythologies are demons less powerful than gods? I can only think of monotheistic ones, but those seem bad parallels to Greyhawk, which lacks any deities of monotheistic power. A better comparison to Christian demons would be Christian angels, which seem pretty evenly matched.
But in "essence," yes, I agree. There seems to be a fundamental difference in kind, if not in power, between a demon and a god. Demons are creatures of destruction, manifestations of entropy not to be worshipped, while gods are creatures of order who maintain and preserve existence. D&D blurs the line with entropic gods and demon-worshipping cults, with demons and half-demons who gain divinity through mortal worship and other means and gods who dwell in the Abyss and essentially become demons.
Quote:
But, as you pointed out, Iuz wasn't born a demi-God. That was my misunderstanding.
I suspect Gygax's original intention was simply that Iuz, a demigod, was the son of Graz'zt (a lesser god) and a mortal.
The stuff about Iuz's divine ascension comes from Iuz the Evil by Carl Sargent, a second edition product. In second edition, Graz'zt was definitely not a god of any sort (although his rival Demogorgon was of lesser god status in 2e, and rival Orcus was explicitly a god as well, though one of undefined level).
Love your knowledge and intelligence my friend. And we will be friends, no matter that we will, at times, disagree. Still, in this case . . .
I appreciate your analogies from the Hindu mythos. And I'm not going to get into a long debate about this here, its "off topic." But several of my sources proffer a differing viewpoint, in regards to some of your conclusions.
Illustrated Dictionary of Mythology (Philip Wilkinson) 1998
A Dictionary of World Mythology (Arthur Cotterell) 1979
Dictionary of Mythology (Bergen Evans) 1970
Mythology (Edith hamilton) 1942
These sources, and others, refer to some of the beings you mentioned as "gods," or, the offspring of the Gods, but not, specifically, as "demons." Some of them are refered to, once, or twice, as "monsters," but they are still said to be the children of "gods." (Was Grazz't's father/mother a God ) I suppose the distinction would depend upon the interpreter of the ancient records.
Also, FYI, they state that Ravanna was killed! One source says Rama killed him, another says that Rama's loyal follower Lakshman killed Ravanna. Sorry to disagree.
Personally, I prefer hard print for these types of researches, since a publishing house will not devote the time and money necessary to publish an actual book unless the author has legitimate credentials in his/her field.
The internet, on the other hand, is free and anyone can publish there, irregardless of their credentials. Here's my webpage, look at me!
In truth, several of the Demon Lords and Devils of Oerth are actually Gods in our real world pantheons; Demogorgon, Thanatos, Orcus, Dagon, etc.
I will do further research into this matter. Perhaps you and I could start a separate thread on how the real world pantheons influenced and inspired the Oerth pantheons. It would be interesting and fun.
These sources, and others, refer to some of the beings you mentioned as "gods," or, the offspring of the Gods, but not, specifically, as "demons."
Some of them are "asuras," a word used interchangeably with deva, or god, in the original Vedic myths, but which became very distinct later on. In later Hinduism there was a very big difference between the gods, or devas, and the asuras, danavas, rakshasas and other beings who I think are best referred to as demons in English - though the word doesn't have the exact connotations it does in Christianity.
Quote:
Was Grazz't's father/mother a God )
His mother was the demoness Pale Night. His father is unknown. James Jacobs' recent Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Graz'zt (which you can download here) leaves the identity of his father ambiguous, suggesting as possibilities Loki, Nyarlathotep, and the Abyss itself.
I personally like to identify Pale Night with the entity "Night" who appeared as one of the rulers of Chaos in Milton's Paradise Lost, along with Orcus, Demogorgon, Chaos, and 'Ades.
Quote:
Also, FYI, they state that Ravanna was killed!
Right. Ravana couldn't be killed by a god because of a favor granted to one of his previous incarnations by Brahma as a reward for various austerities performed by him. As a result, he had to be killed by a human - Rama, who while an avatar of the god Vishnu was in human form, and thus fulfilled the requirements. Other avatars of Vishnu were responsible for the destruction of other otherwise unkillable demons.
We don't actually disagree; you just misunderstood.
Personally, I prefer hard print for these types of researches, since a publishing house will not devote the time and money necessary to publish an actual book unless the author has legitimate credentials in his/her field.
yep that explains the slew of books by Erich Van Danikken (chariots of the gods etc.) because publishing houses look hard at credentials....
Personally, I prefer hard print for these types of researches, since a publishing house will not devote the time and money necessary to publish an actual book unless the author has legitimate credentials in his/her field.
yep that explains the slew of books by Erich Van Danikken (chariots of the gods etc.) because publishing houses look hard at credentials....
Sarcasm duely noted. And I confess myself a little disappointed.
Surely you aren't comparing Erich Anton Paul von Daniken's rather questionable work on extraterrestrial visitations and "paleo-contact hypothesis" to the reference works I sited? By 1982 no American or English publisher would publish his tenth book. His books were, by then, debunked by the likes of Carl Sagan, I. S. Schklovskii, even Ronald Story (another E.T. enthusiast) and were considered little more than works of fiction.
I enjoy Louis Lamour and Arthur Conan Doyle, but I would not compare their works of pure fiction to Webster's New World Dictionary or Britannica's Encyclopedia Volumes.
I enjoy and use Google as much as the next person. But I'm always finding myself questioning their sources. Its not often that they site them. I apologize if I offended you. You have every right to your faith in the internet. I just don't share it. Sorry.
Some of them are "asuras," a word used interchangeably with deva, or god, in the original Vedic myths, but which became very distinct later on.
I personally like to identify Pale Night with the entity "Night" who appeared as one of the rulers of Chaos in Milton's Paradise Lost, along with Orcus, Demogorgon, Chaos, and 'Ades.
Right. Ravana couldn't be killed by a god because of a favor granted to one of his previous incarnations by Brahma as a reward for various austerities performed by him. As a result, he had to be killed by a human - Rama, who while an avatar of the god Vishnu was in human form, and thus fulfilled the requirements. Other avatars of Vishnu were responsible for the destruction of other otherwise unkillable demons.
We don't actually disagree; you just misunderstood.
I also like books.
Thanks for the info on Grazz't. That could prove useful.
Regarding your info on Indra and Mahishasura, one of my reference works says this:
"The defeat of Indra at the hands of demon Ravana, the Rakshasa king of Sri Lanka, and his release from captivity at the behest of Brahma was attributed to the seduction of Ahalya. But the tale of this humiliating punishment, as recounted in the Ramayana, may have been no more than recognition of the decline of Indra's celestial status, lowered perhaps by the brahmins as a means of reducing the influence of the divine patron of the warrior caste." A Dictionary of World Mythology, (Arthur Cotterell) Oxford University Press, 1979.
In house politics! Gotta love it! The priestly caste taking the warror caste down a notch. Shades of Oerth!
The same source speaks of the inability of Vishnu and Shiva to defeat "Mahisha." All the Gods then combined their strength to form Durga. A couple of sources equate Durga with Kali. Interesting.
I share your thoughts on Night. She was actually an "Elder God" of Greek mythology. The Goddess of Discord, Eris, was her daughter, as was Hemera (Personification of Day) and Aether (Air). Their father was Erebus, the mysterious darkness under the earth. Erebus sprung from Chaos. Charon was Erebus' son. I know you know him!
We're going to become good (brotherly) friends. Be prerpared!
sun wu kong, the monkey king, was no god. he was born out of a stone egg, and after learning a few magics with sages, he wento to heaven and causes havoc!
he won battles against many semi and lesser gods, but was finally defeated by budha.
so, in this case, the monkey king learned so much, gain so much power, taht he became nearly invincible, but still, confronting the "big dogs", he had no chance
no, I am not comparing Van Daniken to to true scholarly works... I was pointing out that publishing companies do not always check into the credentials of thier quthors for non-fiction books as throuroghly as one would hope.
no, I am not comparing Van Daniken to to true scholarly works... I was pointing out that publishing companies do not always check into the credentials of thier quthors for non-fiction books as throuroghly as one would hope.
Cwslyclgh! Hail and well met!
I couldn't agree with you more. When it comes to fiction, I care not who the author is, only that he tell a good story. I draw a much finer line when alluding to true Reference works.
For lack of a better way to say it, "Thor" is "real," real in that he's the development of an entire civilization, not the figment of a single author's imagination. When researching him for my own use -- in some fashion -- I wish to refer to the work of someone who knows what they're talking about; i.e. Professor "John Doe" of Michigan State University, etc.
I was simply pointing out that many web sites offer large amounts of information, but don't really tell you where they got it. It is apparent to me that you and Rasgon and I are all "well read," as they say, but, where are our credentials? (You, personally may have some, so I don't say this to disparage anyone here)
So, the three of us join together to start a web site, designed to supply information on a certain subject. People come there and read our information. But upon what basis should they accept our information as "gospel?" That's the point I was making.
I use the internet all the time, but I don't take the information I find there as "gospel," unless I know the "source" of their information. There are unquestionably reputable and reliable web sites out there. Just not all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
) I suppose the distinction would depend upon the interpreter of the ancient records. 
One source says 
Here's my webpage, look at me! 
