Changes to Devils and Demons

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Originally Posted by Sammael

So, instead of adding three sentences for clarification (devils are blah blah blah they fight for blah blah blah and their tactics are usually blah blah blah; demons are blah blah blah, they fight for blah blah blah and they usually don't use any tactics whatsoever) they are "redesigning" the creatures to the point of nonrecognition?

Instead of slapping a coat of paint on an old house, they're doing a full remodel. It's been 30 years. It's worth taking a long hard look at what's come before and deciding if it all needs to stay.

I think I know what the main issue here is: pride. The new designers and developers want to leave their mark on the game NO MATTER THE COST, having seen how Monte Cook gained a near-divine status (from some people) after his work on 3E. They crave recognition, and they figured the best way to get it is to be controversial. It's perfectly understandable, but I don't have to like it.

Let's not ascribe this sort of stuff to the developers, who are actual real people who read this board and who don't need to have personal shots taken at them.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by Sammael

To be honest, I am pretty sure I saw him post in several threads that he has no interest whatsoever in D&D, but 4E may be to his liking. In other words, he is cheering for WotC to basically kill whatever it is that makes the essence of D&D and publish a totally new RPG under the banner.

I think I know what the main issue here is: pride. The new designers and developers want to leave their mark on the game NO MATTER THE COST, having seen how Monte Cook gained a near-divine status (from some people) after his work on 3E. They crave recognition, and they figured the best way to get it is to be controversial. It's perfectly understandable, but I don't have to like it.

How about you don't ascribe motives to people, just because you don't agree with them?

It's okay to disagree, folks; just don't be a jerk about it when someone posts something that is antithetical to your own preference. And don't make claims about other members ("they crave recognition") that are insulting and unproven.

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Originally Posted by Sammael

In fact, I am fairly positive they will be presented as a playable race in the FR Player's Guide (due out after the 4E FRCS, probably in September).

Citation?

Because at this moment, I haven't seen anything from WotC that says what "soon" means for gnomes getting a full write-up, which suggests to me that they haven't decided yet.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Wormwood

*Cha-Ching*

Yeah, one would almost think they were looking to piss off some bible belt people. Free Press FTW? A desperate try to make DnD cool in the eyes of the younger generation? Either way, I definitely like it

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?

Despite your particular predilections, I'm not sure how getting rid of the Planescape cosmology and backstory has anything at all to do with whether or not something is D&D.

I'm a huge Eberron fan, and that basically took Baator, and the Abyss, and Mount Celestia to the sacred slaughterhouse, and I'm pretty sure I was still playing D&D when we broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.

Or are you saying I wasn't actually playing D&D?

[IanB]

Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots

It should be noted that this creates a big opening (and perhaps demand) for Green Ronin or perhaps Paizo to do a 4E OGL Book of Fiends.

And depending on how the OGL is set up, I think it could even rely on the 3E SRD for some content, like... CE succubi.

[Oldtimer]

Originally Posted by mhensley

I just find it lazy is all. How about stop stealing from known religious and make up your own bs.

Bah! A good skald always takes what is familiar and builds his story from that. It's not like they are going to copy text verbatim out of any religious texts. It's still a new story, but built on a somewhat familiar foundation.

Shakespeare was copying old stories for most of his work. Do you consider him lazy as well?

[howandwhy99]

These are Setting elements. These hardly affect anything I'll be doing with monsters.

Yeah, all monsters are Setting elements.

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?

No, I'm not, but frankly that's a kinda insulting thing to say. I know you're all Mr. Plancescape and whatnot, but I daresay that for most of us, esoteric details about the outer planes is not what makes D&D D&D.

[Timmundo]

As someone who is relatively new to D&D (started playing in 2001), I wouldn't know anything about planescape if I didn't frequent this board and the WotC boards. Or, I might remember Planescape: Torment, but that'd be it. Out of the 4 groups I have been fortunate to be a part of, only people in one knew anything about more than two of: Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Planescape, and Dark Sun. And that's only because they had been playing since 2e.

I personally like the changes they are suggesting, because it's close to what I do when I homebrew.

[Piratecat]

Please see post #162 before you're tempted to continue the "not playing D&D" argument. It isn't something I'd like to see continued, and I'd like the thread to stay on topic.

Thanks!

[Shemeska]

Originally Posted by Hobo

No, I'm not, but frankly that's a kinda insulting thing to say.

It wasn't intended to be. Please don't ascribe motives.

In terms of what Wormwood said (not WotC with 4e), if you're wanting to redefine basic creatures in the game, the CE and LE fiends in this case, because you don't see how they're different from one another when those differences are pretty obvious from just the material in the MM and maybe the MotP at most, maybe you'll find something more tailored to your ideas elsewhere. Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being. If you want to erase most of that apparently, a different system with different core assumptions for basic monsters might be more appropriate.

Edit: Saw your note PCat. Noted.

[Mouseferatu]

I guess part of the disconnect, here, is that I'm not seeing how the change to the devils' origins alters their basic motivations or their attitudes with respect to demons. It can alter those, sure, but I don't see why it has to.

[Klaus]

This bit bothered me:

One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.

That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:

- Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.

- Erynies are the torturers of the Cosmos. They seek out those guilty of abominable crimes and torture the hell (pun intended) out of them.

How is that "similar territory"?

As for the looks of demons and devils, for the longest while I have held the opinion that devils should be more humanoid, but with horns, wings and tails, a very draconic appearance. Because oppressive law can be described as "draconic", and LE is all about oppressive law. Demons, OTOH, could have appearance that were all over the place, from the seductive near-human succubus to the just-plain-weird glabrezu.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by Timmundo

As someone who is relatively new to D&D (started playing in 2001), I wouldn't know anything about planescape if I didn't frequent this board and the WotC boards.

I'm running a D&D game TONIGHT with 2 kids (11 and 14) and three adults (mid 30's).

Not a single one of them has ever even heard of Planescape, nor could any of them give a fig about the Great Wheel, the Blood War, or any of the 30 years of D&D's patchwork planar mythology.

A new cosmology---tighter and designed to be cohesive and accessible? FANTASTIC.

The poster who mentioned Marvel's Ultimate line hits close to the mark. When I wanted to get my nephew interested in Spider-man, it was Ultimate Spider-Man to the rescue (rebooting the setting and dumping 40 years of continuity made the hero accessible and fresh).

Bring on Ultimate Orcus.

[Green Knight]

I am wondering how many were the original devils and how long ago did this rebellion happen, since the answers to these questions could make a lot of difference in the cosmology.

Unless the Nine Hells in 4E are much smaller than now, I'd guess that, for some reason, Baator expanded considerably after the deity's death; the alternative implies that 4E gods are (or at least this god was) much more powerful than the current norm.

I think you're making a mistake in assuming that just one god was betrayed and killed. For all we know, this has repeated itself continuously throughout history, with the newly turned devils joining already existing devils. If I had to guess, I'd say the Nine Hells consist of nine separate godly realms, each of which had an angelic rebellion that led to the death of the god they served.

As for real world, I don't mind. In the Time of Troubles trilogy, we have not only the Faeruinian gods, but an Overgod, Ao. It's then discovered that Ao answers to a god greater than even himself. So one can imagine that there's a Supreme Being at the end of the line, who rules over the whole universe. No reason not to say that that god isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And bear in mind, the article says the following:

The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.

- The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.

They were cursed, so who cursed them? They were imprisoned, so who imprisoned them? My theory is that it was the Supreme Being (The Over-Over-Overgod). He was the very first deity to be betrayed by his angelic servants, but He was so friggin' tough that they couldn't take him. So he cursed them into becoming Devils and imprisoned them in hell. Then some other angels worshipping some lesser god (Your average polytheistic deities) betrayed their god and murdered him. So God punished them all just as he did the ones who served him, as their job was to serve that deity, not murder him. Those events repeated themselves with other deities, and God cursed those angels as well, transforming them into devils and imprisoning them all in a hell shaped from the realm they were supposed to defend.

That's my theory, anyway.

[Grog]

The only problem I have with this change is that it sure seems like there are an awful lot of fallen angels around. I think I'd like it a lot better if it were only the original devils who were fallen angels, and most of them were simply created later in that same image. That would make a lot more sense, in my view.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots

It should be noted that this creates a big opening (and perhaps demand) for Green Ronin or perhaps Paizo to do a 4E OGL Book of Fiends.

But not one based on D&D history and names for unique to D&D fiends like Grazzt.

I asked in a previous thread about the demise of dragon if they'd want to do an OGL demonomicon and they (I can't remember if it was Jacobs or Mona) said they had no interest in doing more if they couldn't use past D&D connections and references.

So you might have to be satisfied with the work already done in Book of Fiends (slightly different take on devils, etc.)

[DarthDiablo]

For those who are concerned about the fluff changes for Demons & Devils, nothing WOTC is doing now will compare to TSR's 2nd Edition Change that essentially killed off all of the Demon Princes & Arch-Devils, created the council of 8 Pit Fiend lords of the 9 Hells, and decided our beloved Mythological/Religious Villians become Aliens with names like Baatezu & Tann'ari.
One of the best things about 3rd edition was they brought these baddies back. 3.5 went further into religion by changing certain Celestials into Angels. 4th edition just goes (to rip an old Ska Tune) 1 Step Beyond. I may not agree with all of the changes they make, but overall things are looking pretty good. Besides, if you don't like a certain fluffy description, change it for your campaign. If it's the crunch, re-write it in a way you like.
D&D is based off of Ancient Mythology and modern fantasy. The Greek, Norse, Egyptian, & Sumerian/Babylonian (Tiamat!) Gods all work well with this. I'll even dare to say if someone wants to Judeo-Christian religion fits very nicely into D&D. Obviously Demons & Devils are part of this, but Paladins & Clerics have middle-ages Crusader written all over them as well. The divine powers of the cleric also fit well with certain prophets like Moses & even the Messiah himself (pillars of flame, walking on water, creating meals for the masses-all that good stuff). Making another distinction between Demons & Devils just adds more to this fluff. Perhaps this is also pre-cursor to the alignment changes I have read about on other forums, which would explain the need for a more distinct difference other than one type is CE & the other LE. Mayby they will even drag the "Yugoloths" (anyone remember 1st edition Daemons?!?) over into the Demon fold, which I think is a much better place for them.
Being a fan of Greek Mythology since I saw Clash of the Titans as a young'un I can only hope Medusea are properly re-written as Gorgons, and the name not given to those oversized oxen. Now if they can just keep names like Baatezu & Tann'ari out of the loop, things will be even better than I hoped.

[Aloïsius]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

If you're wanting to redefine basic creatures in the game, the CE and LE fiends in this case, because you don't see how they're different from one another when those differences are pretty obvious from just the material in the MM and maybe the MotP at most, maybe you'll find something more tailored to your ideas elsewhere. Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being.

Once again, I disagree with that. It may be true for the planescape DM, or for the truely high ranking fiends, but for the the most basic ones... There is no real difference of look or behaviour in the way they are played. Compare a Dretch and a Lemure, an Imp and a Quasit... They have nearly the same description in the MM in 3e. And, if you stumble on the picture of a new fiend in some MMx, there is no way to tell the demons from the devils before you read its entry. Heck, even the progression (from larva to fiend lord) is roughly the same for both species. And the symetry extended to their background, both baatezu and tana'ri beeing somewhat recent beeing who have overthrown a more ancient evil race.
I'm happy they make them more disctinct than what they were in the precedent edition, and I hope this difference wil be radical.