Soldiers of the Blood War

Kobold Avenger

Legend

• Nov 20, 2012

• #11

Succubi are embodiments of lust, and lust is chaotic not lawful. Therefore Succubi should most definitely be Demons. There were seductive tempter devils, and they were called Erinyes.

4e's decision to change Succubi was among the many things wrong with 4e, along with a bunch of other decisions with various monsters like Dryads, Genies and too many monsters having to do with Primordials. It was also part of the problem of their perceived need to make a lot of monsters make sense, which they went overboard with, when you consider a lot of D&D monsters are nonsensical.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

• Nov 20, 2012

• #12

It's also true that a lot of that "nonsense" made sense in a certain light. Succubi are part of that -- chaotic and evil because that's what losing control of your base emotions leads to. Demon Lords can be schemers and long-term planners, they just do so for the ultimate forces of raw unleashed chaos and evil.

Cosmologies are things that change drastically with the game world. IMO, any extraplanar creature should be using a light touch because of that. A succubus in Greyhawk may be a CE demon from the Abyss in the Great Wheel, a succubus in PoLand might be a LE devil from the Nine Hells in the Astral Sea, a succubus in Eberron migiht be some rakshasa's agent in Breland politics and mighit actually be a little more NE and all about herself.

By default, in the simplest and most pure D&D expression, extraplanar monsters can be just that: ambiguously extraplanar monsters. Remember how in 1e they were "Type I, Type II," etc., specifically for this reason: mortals don't have to know much about the world beyond their own, and planar binding and the like become a lot scarier when the conjuror isn't sure of the exact traits of their summoned entity.

 

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Staff member

• Nov 20, 2012

• #13

I was never fond of the demon/devil distinction, or of the arbitrary straight lines of a "law vs "chaos" war. It all seemed very forced to me.

 

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer

• Nov 20, 2012

• #14

Morrus said:

I was never fond of the demon/devil distinction, or of the arbitrary straight lines of a "law vs "chaos" war. It all seemed very forced to me.

Click to expand...

Whereas I love it, and feel that it defines demons and devils. I am disappointed by the light touch this description gave the idea.

 

Kinak

First Post

• Nov 20, 2012

• #15

Jeff Carlsen said:

Whereas I love it, and feel that it defines demons and devils. I am disappointed by the light touch this description gave the idea.

Click to expand...

I agree on the light touch. The article missed what's probably the most important part of devil/demon design... selling why we need two categorizations.

Whether it's Planescape's answer or 4e's answer or a brand new answer, they need some way to say "demons are this, devils are that, and never the twain shall meet."

Or they need to just give up and drop them all into a big mixing bowl for the DM to create his own mythos out of. I don't expect that to happen, so I'd really like a stronger definition for the two.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

Stormonu

Legend

• Nov 20, 2012

• #16

...And no mention of Yugoloths/Daemons.

I personally like the idea of succubi playing both sides of the fence - being one of the few fiends that doesn't care which side has the upper hand in the blood war, so long as they get to indulge in temptation.

Alas, unless the MM lists devils and demons as subtypes and cram them all under a 'fiend' entry, succubi are going to have to take a side so developers can put them somewhere in the book (and someone's gonna take umbrage if they're put under their own entry).

 

Z

Zaukrie

New Publisher

• Nov 20, 2012

• #17

I agree with the last poster...

 

F

ferratus

Adventurer

• Nov 20, 2012

• #18

Kobold Avenger said:

Succubi are embodiments of lust, and lust is chaotic not lawful. Therefore Succubi should most definitely be Demons. There were seductive tempter devils, and they were called Erinyes.

Click to expand...

Lust is chaotic, seduction to gain a soul is not. Quite frankly, without that in hell's arsenal, they are missing something. Succubi and Incubi are the common word for fiends that seduce people, and thus belong with the devils. If they were chaotic embodiments of lust, they would be like night hags, which ride sleeping mortals and cause wet dreams.

The Erinyes are not pleasure devils. They are wild spirits of Vengence known as the furies. They exist to punish the guilty with madness and guilt. Thus, they should be angels of a particularly vengeful god, or fallen angels lost to rage, not sexy ladies wearing nothing but see-through lingerie so that people will sign on the dotted line.

Besides, it would be nice to see a female fiend that isn't a sex object.

 

Last edited: Nov 20, 2012

Klaus

First Post

• Nov 20, 2012

• #19

Chalk me up as someone who prefer Erynies as "Vengeance Angels", instead of "Succubi with different alignment".

 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer

• Nov 20, 2012

• #20

Stormonu said:

...And no mention of Yugoloths/Daemons.

Click to expand...

First paragraph under Demons and Devils (General):

"The yugoloths of Hades, caught in the midst of the war, serve as mercenaries and brokers of both power and information, playing the two sides off each other."