I feel like we are getting lost in the weeds. I'd be totally open to using a different term then "Soul", but i'm blanking on a simple and well understood term that means the same thing but isn't tied up with all the baggage of "soul". Like a term that describes a beings level of power, a term i can use to explain why hyper powerful beings can no simply pop in and out of existence upon the prime material plane. Like would people be less angry if i used the term Essence? Spirit? Aura? what quantifiable term is acceptable to define what makes up the inner workings of a divine/demonic being?
My issue with the whole "let your darlings die" is that people refuse to give any real reason as to WHY the idea breaks the world/writing/game experience. I can understand why having a level 1 character with Bahamut's stat block would be a major issue. But i don't see why having an adventuring party full of level 18-20's foil a ritual to summon an Archdevil would break anything. I don't see why having that same party hijack the ritual to bind/seal the Archdevil, so it can't try again later, would destroy the game experience for the other people at the table. Much less how it ruins the game if the NPC who did all this, did it eons before the player character's existed.
I can see your point about looking into the demon/devil lore a bit more. (the starting question was simply suppose to be "hey which evil being is best know for trading powerful things (souls, artifacts,etc...) for knowledge?") we got kind of side tracked on me trying to paint a picture on the character this was all going to be tied too. I do intend to have this be a bit of "canon" D&D universes and a bit of my own personal universe. If one wants to stay totally bound to the canon stuff, one might as well just run a module. As for setting up the mythology, of course the world needs backstory. I can't imagine playing a game where the universe simply sprung into existence around the PC's. A universe that has no past, no present (outside of the PC's sight) and no future once the PC's die.
I also think people misunderstood how much of this info is forced down the players throats. Like the backstory/history of the world exists, and the players can totally get access to it. But it's not like i'm opening the game with a 4-20 hour lecture on how cool NPC's A thru X were, or how they totally should have seen Y 2,000 years ago. You paint a broad strokes picture of the world (or at least the corner of it the player inhabit), and let your players explore. But it sure helps to have lore bits prepared for if/when the characters end up asking about something.
I also agree one needs to keep things open, the players may want to explore in their own direction and full railroading them into the story the DM wants to tell is a sure way to kill interest. That said, i know i'm not going to stand DM'ing 10 straight sessions of the players talking to every plant, looking under every rock, sleeping with everyone in each of the towns/cities they pass through, etc, etc, etc... But one would hope you figure out what kind of party you have long before you reach that point ( a player who is interested in your world is dream, a player who wants to explore your entire world one square inch at a time is a nightmare). I do like the idea of having a rough road map though, and i figure that over the course of many MANY sessions, it's not THAT hard to shadow guide them into running into your BBEG. Worst case you put THAT BBEG back into the vault and pull out another who better fits the path they are going down.
As to why i asked the question. Simple i was looking for a faster way to get an answer to what i assumed was a simple question "Which Archdevil do i go to, to make a deal for knowledge?", then having to deep dive on ALL the Archdevils (past, present, and possible future) as well as most, if not all, of the established Gods. Like i want to build a compelling story, and i want it to use some version of established lore, but I don't want to spend 20 hours reading and rereading canon and fan wiki to make sure that i don't anger someone by having an established being say/do something "it would never do"
You got what you asked for. People gave you names. Why did you keep posting? You're like an encyclopedia salesman who won't leave. You're so hooked on your "lore" that you can't stand to revise it and when people try to tell you they don't want your encyclopedia, you still keep trying to sell it. No thanks, I'm not buying.
2 people actually answered the question "which Archdevil tends to handle trades of souls for knowledge?". One of which i had on mute for a while, and the other's response was more of a joke then an actual answer. The rest of the people (you included) got into **** off contests about off topic BS like "can an Archdevil even do X/Y/Z?", "Well this is how the DMG/MM/PH says Liches works", "I don't like your lore (for no clear reason)"
I'm terribly sorry that you feel so put out with me asking questions. Might i suggest NOT responding to future ones?
I feel like we are getting lost in the weeds. I'd be totally open to using a different term then "Soul", but i'm blanking on a simple and well understood term that means the same thing but isn't tied up with all the baggage of "soul". Like a term that describes a beings level of power, a term i can use to explain why hyper powerful beings can no simply pop in and out of existence upon the prime material plane. Like would people be less angry if i used the term Essence? Spirit? Aura? what quantifiable term is acceptable to define what makes up the inner workings of a divine/demonic being?
My issue with the whole "let your darlings die" is that people refuse to give any real reason as to WHY the idea breaks the world/writing/game experience. I can understand why having a level 1 character with Bahamut's stat block would be a major issue. But i don't see why having an adventuring party full of level 18-20's foil a ritual to summon an Archdevil would break anything. I don't see why having that same party hijack the ritual to bind/seal the Archdevil, so it can't try again later, would destroy the game experience for the other people at the table. Much less how it ruins the game if the NPC who did all this, did it eons before the player character's existed.
I can see your point about looking into the demon/devil lore a bit more. (the starting question was simply suppose to be "hey which evil being is best know for trading powerful things (souls, artifacts,etc...) for knowledge?") we got kind of side tracked on me trying to paint a picture on the character this was all going to be tied too. I do intend to have this be a bit of "canon" D&D universes and a bit of my own personal universe. If one wants to stay totally bound to the canon stuff, one might as well just run a module. As for setting up the mythology, of course the world needs backstory. I can't imagine playing a game where the universe simply sprung into existence around the PC's. A universe that has no past, no present (outside of the PC's sight) and no future once the PC's die.
I also think people misunderstood how much of this info is forced down the players throats. Like the backstory/history of the world exists, and the players can totally get access to it. But it's not like i'm opening the game with a 4-20 hour lecture on how cool NPC's A thru X were, or how they totally should have seen Y 2,000 years ago. You paint a broad strokes picture of the world (or at least the corner of it the player inhabit), and let your players explore. But it sure helps to have lore bits prepared for if/when the characters end up asking about something.
I also agree one needs to keep things open, the players may want to explore in their own direction and full railroading them into the story the DM wants to tell is a sure way to kill interest. That said, i know i'm not going to stand DM'ing 10 straight sessions of the players talking to every plant, looking under every rock, sleeping with everyone in each of the towns/cities they pass through, etc, etc, etc... But one would hope you figure out what kind of party you have long before you reach that point ( a player who is interested in your world is dream, a player who wants to explore your entire world one square inch at a time is a nightmare). I do like the idea of having a rough road map though, and i figure that over the course of many MANY sessions, it's not THAT hard to shadow guide them into running into your BBEG. Worst case you put THAT BBEG back into the vault and pull out another who better fits the path they are going down.
As to why i asked the question. Simple i was looking for a faster way to get an answer to what i assumed was a simple question "Which Archdevil do i go to, to make a deal for knowledge?", then having to deep dive on ALL the Archdevils (past, present, and possible future) as well as most, if not all, of the established Gods. Like i want to build a compelling story, and i want it to use some version of established lore, but I don't want to spend 20 hours reading and rereading canon and fan wiki to make sure that i don't anger someone by having an established being say/do something "it would never do"
You got what you asked for. People gave you names. Why did you keep posting? You're like an encyclopedia salesman who won't leave. You're so hooked on your "lore" that you can't stand to revise it and when people try to tell you they don't want your encyclopedia, you still keep trying to sell it. No thanks, I'm not buying.
<Insert clever signature here>
2 people actually answered the question "which Archdevil tends to handle trades of souls for knowledge?". One of which i had on mute for a while, and the other's response was more of a joke then an actual answer. The rest of the people (you included) got into **** off contests about off topic BS like "can an Archdevil even do X/Y/Z?", "Well this is how the DMG/MM/PH says Liches works", "I don't like your lore (for no clear reason)"
I'm terribly sorry that you feel so put out with me asking questions. Might i suggest NOT responding to future ones?
You're the one who is still talking. Try taking your own advise.
<Insert clever signature here>
Agree to disagree I suppose