D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
This is a change I wished for in one of the 'what you want to see' threads, but thought would NEVER actually happen.
I can't stand the Great Wheel/Planescape cosmology and its odd demon/devil distinctions that tell you nothing about the creatures. The new version sounds like exactly what I asked for: Devils = fallen angels, demons = weird awfulness.
I'm kind of curious what role the yugoloths have, though, since those two categories would seem to cover all the non-explicitly-Far-Realmsy evil outsider bases. I'd have expected the yugos to disappear entirely in this sort of cosmology, but it seems they've been confirmed in the very same announcement. Interesting.
Meh. The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that "implied setting" stuff that we've been hearing about. Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.
Yeah, but it's fluff that will almost certainly also apply to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, any Planescape reissue they do, and any new published setting. It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.
Other than the potentially very interesting gelugon origin, the other changes are... horrible. I will feel free to ignore them, much as I've ignored the silly 3.x FR cosmology, but this pretty much destroys any chance of a credible 4E version of Planescape for me.
The biggest worry for me is the changed appearance of devils, which will be reflected in the miniatures line. I can see right now that I will have to seriously reconsider my miniature purchases beginning with Dungeons of Dread. Luckily, most of the core devils and demons have already been issued, but I fear for my long-awaited Barbazu Trooper...
These changes seem mostly ok by me. As I recall, it was mentioned that WotC was wanting 4e to include or reflect more in the way of traditional myths, so this would make a lot of sense. I happen to really like the way that devils and demons are being distinguished in terms of appearance.
The only weird thing is his statement that the succubus and erinyes were already so similar: the succubus is geared towards deception and control, while the erinyes is geared towards combat. I guess maybe now the succubus can be customized for whatever role you need?
If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.
Yup. Just use your old fluff with the new crunch.
And I fail to see why 1e/2e/3e "there is no difference between demons and devils, they look the same except for their alignment" was superior to 4e "devils are humanoid fallen angels, demons are abomination from the outer planes". :\
If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.
The problem is that all future products will be written with the above changes as the baseline, which means that it is highly unlikely 4E will be able to provide me with a sourcebook which deals with planar issues which is compatible with twenty years of previously published fluff. If Baator is a dead god's realm, that means that Great Wheel is either gone altogether, or changed to the point of non-recognition.
Oh, and... if this is what they are doing to devils and demons, imagine what they're doing to the four breeds of celestials. Did I say four? Hmmm... I suspect only aasimon (angels) will survive the cut unchanged.
Hmm... my immediate reaction is that this screws with the timeline of the origin of Baator...
Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm.
I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions. Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows". This not not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, but it is something that needs to be taken into account for ongoing campaigns being converted to 4e.
In a theoretical Planescape 4e supplement, I would expect Baator to be a different place than the Nine Hells being talked about here. The succubus/eriynes merger is also trivially fixed (if you need to) by saying that in the Planescape setting the succubus from the Monster Manual is called an "eriynes" in the setting and that there's this other demon monster called a succubus that it somewhat different over in the Abyss. Personally, I'd probably prefer they just kind of sweep it under the rug and ignore it, but then I'm someone who doesn't care about playing "fast and loose" with gameworld "continuity" and other's mileage will vary.
Much like I wouldn't expect published settings to correspond to the "points of light in darkness" motif of the "implied setting" of the core rules, I don't expect published settings to slavishly follow the "fluff" that is derived from that implied setting in the Monster Manual. What's the point of publishing different settings if they all have the same feel and the same fluff?
And I fail to see why 1e/2e/3e "there is no difference between demons and devils, they look the same except for their alignment" was superior to 4e "devils are humanoid fallen angels, demons are abomination from the outer planes". :\
If you can say that, I can only conclude that you have never read a single line of fluff on evil outsiders from either the Planescape setting, or the 3.x planar books (including the two Fiendish Codices).
If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.
I'm guessing the strongest reactions may be from those who were hoping for a nice fluffy new Planescape book for 4e, especially in light of Scott's awesome "Brand Manager of Fluff" thread.
Although there is probably still some chance of a Planescape book that ignores the changes, it seems unlikely. The succubus/erinyes thing is probably the hardest to deal with because it requires not only moving back the succubus to the demons but also recreating crunch for the erinyes. Though I suppose it wouldn't be terribly difficult either.
I don't like the ad hoc Ice Devils are really demons but we fudged it, so they're devils.
That's actually from the AD&D 2e Hell book.... the Ice Devils were originally rulers of a small plane that was conquered in primeval times by the devils. However, in 3e, succubi were also odd men out... fallen angels, who ended up settling in the Abyss for whatever reason and continued to breed true as a race.
I like the general sound of things... however, I don't think devils should be too human-like. I think some of them should be really strange. I think the distinction is that devils should embody "sins" or specific forms of horror, demons should just be horrific and inimical.
There is one thing about this that cheeses me off... I recently acquired and really like the two Fiendish Codices. Those books claimed they would be considered canonical going forward... well, that lasted a few months!
Well we've already seen an eladrin in the preview material, so I suspect we'll see the four types retained.
Retained, maybe (although I am quite worried for the guardinals... and the archons may be merged with aasimon). Filling the same roles as today? Bloody unlikely.
If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.
Its nice when the core books don't contradict your world/campaign, especially for no good reason.
I am getting the feeling they are doing more on the "fluff" side then they really need to. I mean, I like some of the origin stuff done a long , long time ago (see the sahaguin in Eldritch Wizardry as an example) but the reality is that the easier it is for DMs to use these monsters (or classes, races, whatever) the better. And to much "fluff" like this may make them harder to use.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic; Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then click; You can use “Earth” as a D&D setting; Origins of The Rouse; (look for it) The Rouse responds; (look for it) One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
If you can say that, I can only conclude that you have never read a single line of fluff on evil outsiders from either the Planescape setting, or the 3.x planar books (including the two Fiendish Codices).
I deed. A lot. Do you have a real arguments to sustain your point of view, rather than shooting "stupid, ignorant!" ?
Yeah, but it's fluff that will almost certainly also apply to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, any Planescape reissue they do, and any new published setting. It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.
Wha? No it doesn't - that fluff is still there, ready to use any time you might want it. I certainly intend to use both of those codexes (codexi? codecii? Hmmm) in my games, much like I continue to mine Planescape material for ideas and neat things to do with demons/devils/yugoloths. I don't really care what fluff they put in there - my game is still mine and I can do what I want with it.
And again, I reiterate, if Wizards puts these fluff changes into all of their settings across the board then they are dumb. What is the point of buying a different published setting if all of their settings have the same "feel"? For example, these changes aren't going to impact Eberron much at all because Eberron has:
* No Asmodeus
* No Nine Hells
* Not really much of a distinction between devils and demons anyway
I don't expect the feel of the published settings to change to match the "implied setting" in the core books. If Wizards does that, they're shooting themselves in their collective feet.
I personally dig it. I never liked that the demons and devils of old could have easily been called something else.
__________________ Mike McConnell, Freelance RPG Writer Currently Working On: Starblazer Adventures: The Planet Killers
Co-Owner of Imagineering Inc, formerly known as BC-Products, and the owner of the original Tact-Tiles.
Follow me and Imagineering Inc on Twitter: Mechalus
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic;
Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then 
You can use “Earth” as a D&D 
The Rouse 
One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
