Talk:Lords of the Nine Hells
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] RE: Asmodeus and the Pact Primeval
The account of the pact as stated in Fiendish Codex II seems to establish the Devils as a more recent force (if you want to force a chronology into a "time before time") than devils, and seems to cast the pact itself, and Asmodeus' fall, as the "one event" that set the status quo regarding the alignment of the multiverse (that is being law v. chaos and good v. evil).
There's an interesting analogy to this in the way the nine hells are set up. In Baator, only Asmodeus gets to determine the cardinal directions (i.e. north and south and so on). Before everything the only things around were chaotic evil (the abyss and demons) and the lawful good deities that fought them (out of an essential reaction to demonic presence). The signing of the pact essentially "formalized" the creation of lawful evil (devils and asmodeus), and thus allowed neutrality and all the other shades between good, evil, law, and chaos) to take root. Therefore, since the fiendish codexes are the most up-to-date, "canon" sources, one might consider the pact primeval to be a fair account of the multiverse's origin story.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unangbangkay (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Suggested article for creation
(Moving this comment from the article --Muchness 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
(see list of Heirarchy in "Articles for Creation" 1/31/06) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.153.84.10 (talk • contribs) .
- Hierarchy of Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition Devils --Muchness 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources, and more info
If anyone cares to add more to this article, I have done quite a bit of research here: [1]BOZ 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article an essay comprised of original research?
This probably one of the worst examples of a in universe article that I have ever read. The flaccid style in which it is written ("Mammon was the first to abase himself before him, gaining the enmity of the other Lords") indicates that the author(s) have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. What is is needed is real-world content supported by secondary sources. This article is in desperate need or editing, so that the extensive plot summary which makes up 90% of this article is deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you'd take the time to read the sources it's pulling from, you wouldn't be asking the question of if it's based on original research. You're not qualified to make the judgement about OR on a great many articles you spam such tags on Gavin, and given your judgement above, this one included. The article can be improved, but you're grossly pushing your POV here without an apparent willingness to make any improvements yourself, or even gain a rudimentary knowledge of the topic in question. Given the almost random nature of what is tagged as OR within the article, it's bordering on bad faith editing, and quite possible slipping over the line given your lack of knowledge on the topic in question. Shemeska (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am qualified. Since the persepctive of this article is almost without exception in universe, then unless this article cites the primary source, then it is open to challenge that it is original research. Remember, an article about a ficitonal topic has to have real-world meaning, so when an editor states "Mammon was the first to abase himself before him, gaining the enmity of the other Lords", you know it is OR because Mammon does not exist in the real world. There is nothing random about the tags: either remove the OR that makes up this so called plot summary (which is in fact a synthesis of fictional content) or leave the cleanup tags where they are until this OR is removed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is an essay, but the main problem is that the person(s) who wrote it did so as prose without citing the sources they took the information from. It was compiled from various sources, which are listed at the bottom of the page. It's in need of serious fixing, but it's nothing that's unfixable. Some parts of it may be OR, but since the sources are not cited properly it's impossible to tell. The line that Gavin quotes comes from "Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells", and if I had the book with me I could cite that myself. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I concede that parts of this article may have been taken from the source material, but that is a problem in itself. Making extensive quotations from primary sources puts WP at risk of copyright violation by reproducing tracts of the original source without the publishers permission. This article needs to get rid of the overlong plot summary, because not only is it regurgitation of primary material (OR or not), but also because there is no real-world content, context or analysis contained in fictional content. The cleanup tags should remain until cleaup is effected. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- So fix the article instead of asking other editors to fix it for you. Rray (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- If only. I can't recall a single instance of Gavin making a constructive improvement to an article. It's all tags, AFDs, and expecting others to bend to his POV while simultaneously not having a working knowledge of the topic in question. I've said it before, but I'm amazed he hasn't been blocked from working on this genre of topics given his actions and attitude.Shemeska (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think he thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to fix the things he thinks need to be fixed. I've at least seen Jack Merridew making minor style fixes to make articles look better, but can't say I've seen Gavin doing anything but uglying them up. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- True. While I don't agree with a lot of what Jack does, he does seem to be trying to improve articles, and while his editing philosophy is deletionist on a good day, he's not entirely unwilling to work with folks, I'll grant him that. Gavin on the other hand no.Shemeska (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The cleanup templates are important, as they involve other editors (like yourself) who would not have been made aware of the problems this article has had they not been hightlighted. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- True. While I don't agree with a lot of what Jack does, he does seem to be trying to improve articles, and while his editing philosophy is deletionist on a good day, he's not entirely unwilling to work with folks, I'll grant him that. Gavin on the other hand no.Shemeska (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think he thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to fix the things he thinks need to be fixed. I've at least seen Jack Merridew making minor style fixes to make articles look better, but can't say I've seen Gavin doing anything but uglying them up. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- If only. I can't recall a single instance of Gavin making a constructive improvement to an article. It's all tags, AFDs, and expecting others to bend to his POV while simultaneously not having a working knowledge of the topic in question. I've said it before, but I'm amazed he hasn't been blocked from working on this genre of topics given his actions and attitude.Shemeska (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- So fix the article instead of asking other editors to fix it for you. Rray (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I concede that parts of this article may have been taken from the source material, but that is a problem in itself. Making extensive quotations from primary sources puts WP at risk of copyright violation by reproducing tracts of the original source without the publishers permission. This article needs to get rid of the overlong plot summary, because not only is it regurgitation of primary material (OR or not), but also because there is no real-world content, context or analysis contained in fictional content. The cleanup tags should remain until cleaup is effected. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant templates
This article doesn't need 2 templates pointing out the same thing (that there are no footnotes). I've removed the other template regarding the lack of footnotes. Please don't re-add without some kind of reasonable justification for having two templates which basically say the same thing. Rray (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
