Ipos, Paimon, the vestiges and the Abyss

[Cicciograna]

I don't know if this has ever come out, but I noticed that on the Abyss map (http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4166/abyssn.jpg) portrayed on page 108 of Fiendish Codex I there are some symbols: one of them is actually the seal of Ipos (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/8708/ipos.jpg) from Tome of Magic. The description of the vestige in the book does not make any reference to the Abyss; however, on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_lord_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29#Non-canonical_demon_lords) Ipos is listed as a (non-canonical) demon lord: so which of the two versions is correct? Is he a scholar of planes and planar travel or a true Demon Lord?

Moreover, of the other four symbols, one looks like that of Paimon (and it even reports his name) but it's just similar; I couldn't identify the other three: the names seem those of Marbas, Barbatos and Samigina.

EDIT: Okay, while I was writing, I found the truth about these symbols. It seems that many (actually almost all) of the vestiges are actual demons taken from The Goetia. Gave me the chills, but original, indeed.
More info here (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/), along with the descriptions of Ipos (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/172/ipos/), Paimon (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/313/paimon/) (with the correct seal), Marbas (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/295/marbas/), Barbatos (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/104/barbatos/) and Samigina (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/326/samigina/).
So, no questions, it seems; this thread is now purely informative, but I hope interesting, nonetheless. Have fun.

[sreservoir]

probably yanked from goetia in both cases?

[Psyren]

My theory is that in Binding's infancy, it was meant to be a fiendcalling-system; this fluff was relegated to the Adaptation section while the base vestiges were converted to being simply amoral to make DMs less averse to allowing them in a game. But by then the art was likely already underway for the book.

[Eldan]

Especially since, from what I've heard, the seals are lifted from Alastair Crowley.

[Benly]

My theory is that in Binding's infancy, it was meant to be a fiendcalling-system; this fluff was relegated to the Adaptation section while the base vestiges were converted to being simply amoral to make DMs less averse to allowing them in a game. But by then the art was likely already underway for the book.

It's actually sort of both. Most of the vestiges are based on the Devils of Solomon, which occupy kind of a weird place on the moral spectrum of magical folklore. The idea is that these are 72 demons that King Solomon bound using magic, the same way he supposedly bound the ifrits (although since traditionally the distinction between an ifrit and a demon is not entirely clear, it may be two derivations of the same story). Since King Solomon's magic was supposed to have been granted by God, the binding and contract isn't considered black magic, and using his rituals to summon and bind their power is morally harmless as long as you don't use these demons to do anything evil. The demons may want their summoner to do evil things, and might make offers like "you know, it would be so much easier to just kill that guy you don't like", but as long as the summoner doesn't follow that temptation the magic is considered to be morally acceptable.

So, yes, binding is based on demon-summoning and it's amoral magic, because the magical folklore it's based on falls under that category.

[Cicciograna]

It's actually sort of both. Most of the vestiges are based on the Devils of Solomon, which occupy kind of a weird place on the moral spectrum of magical folklore. The idea is that these are 72 demons that King Solomon bound using magic, the same way he supposedly bound the ifrits (although since traditionally the distinction between an ifrit and a demon is not entirely clear, it may be two derivations of the same story). Since King Solomon's magic was supposed to have been granted by God, the binding and contract isn't considered black magic, and using his rituals to summon and bind their power is morally harmless as long as you don't use these demons to do anything evil. The demons may want their summoner to do evil things, and might make offers like "you know, it would be so much easier to just kill that guy you don't like", but as long as the summoner doesn't follow that temptation the magic is considered to be morally acceptable.

So, yes, binding is based on demon-summoning and it's amoral magic, because the magical folklore it's based on falls under that category.

Fascinating.
I'm always pleased by the global competence of the Playground over the most disparate subjects.

[Yanagi]

Especially since, from what I've heard, the seals are lifted from Alastair Crowley.

The seals/sigils predate Crowley. The Lemegeton/Lesser Key of Solomon--the origin of the 72 demon list--borrows from older books of theurgy and goetry, like Abramelin the Mage and the Pseudomonarchia ...which themselves are building on earlier texts like the Grimoire of Honorius, etc, etc...

The seals/sigils are part of a talisman-creating tradition that extends back to early medieval Kabbalists working in Hebrew and Greek. The sigils used in the Legemeton are copies (sometimes miscopies) of earlier ones. The more general themes and motifs of sigils--the circle, the loops and whorls of the "script"--go back as far as the 13th century and the Celestial Alphabet and Malachim scripts of Cornelius Agrippa...which are derived from Hebrew and related Semitic abjabs...and it all has to do with the exceedingly venerable concept of binding names as magical rites, which created very similar inscription-based talismans (both on paper and clay)...so it's pretty much elephants all the way down.

[Eldan]

Right, right. Of course they are older. Crowley copied from a lot of sources. What I meant is that the authors and artists of ToM got their specific versions from Crowley.

[Benly]

Right, right. Of course they are older. Crowley copied from a lot of sources. What I meant is that the authors and artists of ToM got their specific versions from Crowley.

They're copied directly from the Lesser Key of Solomon, which is a 17th-century text and thus significantly predates Crowley. I wouldn't be surprised if Crowley also copied them, but I don't really see any reason to bring him into it either.