http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drigg/20081110
Apparently they redid Baphomet, though you could replace his name with Yeenoghu and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in that excerpt.
Wizards have really made demons into boring cliches....sigh...
The Demonomicon of Iggwilv reveals another of its entries, this time focusing on the Prince of Beasts, Baphomet. The savage and unpredictable demon prince is statistically profiled in the forthcoming Manual of the Planes, but in this article, delve deep into the inner workings of Baphomet's plans, allies, and his many enemies.
Forces in the world -- cruel, carnal, bestial forces -- seek to unravel the divine and shatter its works. They struggle to turn mortals against one another and to tear down the works of civilization. The goal is to allow evil and chaos to run free. Such forces are known by many names: Graz'zt, Orcus, Yeenoghu, and others. However, one has an insidious presence that worms into mortal hearts and minds and deceives them into turning away from righteousness to embrace brutality. This agent of destruction is Baphomet, who is also known as the Prince of Beasts, the Trampler, the Minotaur Lord, and the Horned King. Born from the churning chaos of the Abyss near the dawn of time, Baphomet is the embodiment of savagery, one of nature's most destructive aspects, and the catalyst that looses the beast residing in us all.
Wait, you just meant the blurb for the article? Seriously? I mean, I'm not a big fan of 4e myself, but that's almost literally judging a book by its cover. It's like saying a book sucks because you thought the dust cover inner flap summary was generic and trite. Shouldn't you hold off on judgment until you read the actual article?
Perhaps, but part of my point is why are they redoing an Abyssal Lord that was already covered in Dragon?
I'll get the article if I can buy it individually to prove the rest my point, but the excerpt sets the tone -like a preview for a movie/show- that we've been seeing since 4e started. Demons are killers, savage, (use a thesaurus for similar words)....basically rewordings of what we had in Races and Classes.
But given their poor distribution method, the excerpt is what one has to judge the article on. I read Paizo blog posts all the time and *those* get me to buy their products.
I disagree that it's what you have to judge the article on. It's what you have to judge if you want to buy the article or not, which is an entirely different beast from judging the article itself. You can decide if you want to go see a movie or not by watching the trailer, if it looks like it might be worth the cost of a ticket to try it out, but you can't decide if the movie is actually good or bad just by the trailer.
And they're covering it again because it's an entirely different cosmology, and so despite having the same name and some of the same traits, it's not automatically the same character. By the same token, Paizo is probably going to end up redoing Pazuzu and Asmodeus for Golarion, I can bet you.
Isn't that predictable? I knew you never actually read the article...
Anyways if you want a review from someone who read the article. Compared to the Paizo article it lacks in describing many of the motivations and personality of Baphomet, and it lacks his actual stat-block. We've been told some more will appear in the Manual of the Planes, but it certainly feels incomplete compared to the Paizo article right from the start. While the Paizo article emphasized his more scientific side, this one does give a nod to his habit for cruel sadistic experimentation. We're given a bit of history on Baphomet though they've filled it with stuff about him being a primordial that was close to nature and how he represents the savagery of nature, and his vendetta against Yeenoghu for being a coward.
Then we're given descriptions of his Exarchs and followers. Asterion a minotaur with an everchanging map of the Endless Maze tattooed on his body, and the Misbegotten which is some sort of failed experiment. They go on about Baphomet's realm and his servants, the Tower of Science has been renamed the Horrid Spire and they don't mention the Obyrith Lord that was involved with it. The one interesting highlight out of the servants were the Knights of the Horned King, who are a reference to the real-life Knight Templars that were accused of worshipping Baphomet. And then they go on to describe some of the Demons of the Endless Maze, including the victims of Baphomet's experiments.
Overall it's not as good as most of the previous Demonomicon articles, though it's better than quite a few of the recent Dragon articles. And I'm glad that they haven't forgotten about Pale Night, as she and her bone castle gets a paragraph.
That's a little disappointing, that it doesn't measure up to the Paizo articles, although it does sound like there are some cool ideas in there that could be yoinked for non-4e games. I love the idea of Asterion just from that short description, that's a pretty cool concept.
"Isn't that predictable? I knew you never actually read the article..."
I didn't claim to. I also don't see what's so predictable, unless you predicted I wouldn't spend hard earned money on the DDI.
Though I concede the point Idran - I rushed to judgement on this one. I plan on writing a more thorough review of the Manual of the Planes.
I'm not a subscriber; I don't know about the legality of it, but can you copy the text of the article or something? Or probably a better choice in that vein, show some excerpts of what you mean?