In the Dark Sun setting (RIP), it was at least pretty clear :

- The Tyr Dragon was the most powerful being,
- Then the Sorcerer-Kings (10 of them at max)
- Then the Tyr Dragon's Kaishargas
- Then the 6 Nightmare Beasts

And only afterwards is it open to debate :)

I am jealous; I loved that book. I had tons of AD&D and 2nd Edition books when I was in middle/high school (late 80s, early 90s). However, my mother 'lost' them all when I went to college. She did this with practically everything I had in storage at my parents' house when my grandmother moved into my room my 3rd year of college. Most of it wasn't a big deal, but losing the D&D books depressed me.

As for the most powerful entity in D&D, I don't think a singular answer exists. Depending on the circumstance, one godling or magical beast might be the most powerful, but under slightly different circumstances, another being might be on top. The whole 'Time of Troubles' is a good example of this sort of 'circumstance shift'. Seriously, mortals killing gods, gods killing gods, immortal portfolios getting mixed and matched with reckless abandon; the Forgotten Realms was flipped on its head!

EDIT:
I guess that means I am in the Ao camp, since Ao caused the Time of Troubles. I think the ability to make all gods mortal on a whim is rather hard to top.

I actually ignored 4ed 'cause I never played it, and I never played 'cause I didn't iike what I saw about it. I am a great fan of AD&D and of 3.5 D&D so... ^^
If you have good players, who actually want to play a role-playing game and not some form of table-top Diablo, every pen-and-paper RPG is enjoyable. I had one person in my group who wanted to show the rest of us how better he was at every game we played, and he was just as unbearable in AD&D as he was in 3.5, to the point where we had to kick him out. Since then, we haven't had a single debate over combat rules or such.

I think it's still a matter of personal tastes, I like the fact that with so many rulebooks in 3.5 you can do really everything that comes into your mind. It's up to the player to be smart enough not to abuse the rules.

That said, maybe you're right and 4ed is really all the way better. I'll never find out though, my DM really hates the thing xD

That's just ridiculous. No DM would allow that

Yog-sothoth will rule you alll. BWAHHAHAAHAHAHA!......wait wrong game....

<<< JON IRENICUS!

*cough*bhaalspawn*cough*

Yep, that's the point, it's only a theoretical exercise.
I think no sane player would actually use those characters.
Also, take a look at this ^^ http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.

That is just hilarious :D One of the coolest exploits I've ever seen in the system.

Btw, wasn't a Tarrasque considered to be the most powerful being? Maybe it changed in the newer editions, since I was reading about him in the 2nd one.

Also, Elminster can't be the most powerful one. He told the Bhaalspawn that he wouldn't dare to get into a battle with him ;)

And the players.

In a bad game:

DM treats the players like puppets and does what he wants.

Players leave the table and destroy the universe.

In a good game:

DM pays attention to what stimulates the players and the players (and the actions of their characters) become a central part of the DM's universe.

The dices have some power, but a good DM will never let the result of a dice roll ruin a campaign.

The main reason I never got hooked past the second edition is that they replaced a detailed description of monsters (talking about such thing as their diet, society and general ecology) with a short paragraph description. They did a similar thing with spells.

Once that happened, I knew I was not longer part of the target audience for the product.

I still have all my 2nd edition material: about 40 books total, bunch of rulebooks + the core of Birthright, Forgotten Realms, Planescape (+ the montruous appendum for the demons) and a bucketload of books for Ravenloft (my favorite setting). I still DM about once a month on average.

Frankly, I never felt like re-investing that kind of money in a later edition which I felt were inferior anyways for my purposes.

Diablo! Oh wait, wrong game :-P

In AD&D the Tarrasque i really incredibly powerful, but they really nerfed it in 3.5...

Which shows how much role-playing went down the drain in future editions.

The Tarrasque is supposed to be a destroyer of civilisations, Godzilla on steroids. You don't nerf something like that.

So what do they do? They turn it into another beasty to slay for loot.

I gotta agree with this, really in 3.5 ruleset combat seems to be the strongest focus, and this makes me really sad. Yet, the amount of roleplaying is more dependant on the attitude pf both the players and the DM than on the rules, if you ask me