Yugoloths want to get rich, hence why they will work for almost anyone, they have no idealogy, I mean some Yugoloths might be converted to a belief system, but most Yugoloths want wealth, in any currency they can use.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
Yugoloths want to get rich, hence why they will work for almost anyone, they have no idealogy, I mean some Yugoloths might be converted to a belief system, but most Yugoloths want wealth, in any currency they can use.
Hexmage-EN
Legend
Honestly I much prefer Pathfinder's Daemons to D&D's Yugoloths, then. If both factions are about causing pointless suffering then the PF Daemons seem to represent that better and more explicitly seek it, whereas the Yugoloths are more indirect about it and seem content to let Demons and Devils commit atrocities as part of the Blood War.
I can easily see an apocalyptic Daemon cult of one of the Four Horsemen of Abaddon, but would there even be such a thing as a Yugoloth cult?
I can easily see an apocalyptic Daemon cult of one of the Four Horsemen of Abaddon, but would there even be such a thing as a Yugoloth cult?
Last edited:
S
Sunseeker
Guest
IMO, Yugoloths do not have a distinct enough visual identity to be considered different from Demons. This is not entirely their fault, Devils have a rather standard appearance: humanoids with obvious monstrous elements. Demons are the ones who present the problem, since their visual identity is diverse, comprising pretty much any kind of demonic "monster".
And I know almost squat about them culturally, so I'm sure that's not helping.
I don't really see a need for a grouping of monsters for each primary alignment component. "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" seem to cover it. The bleed between the two alignments can easily be filled with either less chaotic, or less lawful members of the other two factions.
And I know almost squat about them culturally, so I'm sure that's not helping.
I don't really see a need for a grouping of monsters for each primary alignment component. "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" seem to cover it. The bleed between the two alignments can easily be filled with either less chaotic, or less lawful members of the other two factions.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
The idea that there are three distinct sets of fiends (including one set that specifically includes Demogorgon and Orcus that live in the primordial chaos) came from Paradise Lost. Admittedly, yugoloths don't much resemble the offspring of Satan and Sin (the third group of fiends), who are often described as monstrous hounds (although I guess arcanaloths might fit that bill, and I have a vague memory of nyconaloths being described as "bulldog-headed").
dave2008
Legend
But you said this: "They want to destroy the universe and then ultimately themselves when there is nothing left." in post #55. So which is it? Get rich or destroy everything or get rich to destroy?
That was Pathfinder Daemons not Yugoloths, who are extremely different from each other, PF Daemons aren't mercanies and in some cases Demons and Devils will even team up to stop Daemons from destroying the universe. Despite being NE Yugoloths and PF Daemons would NOT get along, their forms of evil are incompatable.
dave2008
Legend
But that particular discussion was all about pathfinder daemons, that is why a pointed it out. So you are saying that in mid discussion you switched from discussing pathfinder daemons to D&D yugoloths? I see now that you did indeed use the term yugoloth when responding to the daemon discussion. I just thought you mixed the names, but you mixed the response. That makes sense - it happens.
dave2008
Legend
Thank you for the link!
Unfortunately, it was, for me, a bit of disappointing read. They basically read like demons to me (or how I treat demons). Maybe if a review their PF stat blocks it will clue me in more to their differences. Maybe 4e had it right and we should just combine demons and daemons in more than just pronunciation.
.
Jester David
Hero
In Pathfinder, devils are related to the hierarchy of the Hells and are all positions in the bureaucracy, as the soul works its way up the ranks. Meanwhile demons are all associated with sins committed by the soul in life. Daemons are all created by people who died in horrible ways.
Which adds another layer of differentiation to the evil outsiders.
(But it only works so-so, given the sheer number of fiends in Pathfinder, and the fact it just slaps these ideas atop existing demons and devils. It's a huge lore retcon.)
As mentioned, Pathfinder daemons are also defined for their nihilism. They don't just want to mindlessly destroy like demons, they specifically want to annihilate living things in particularly violent ways. So it's more their sadistic methods. They're fiends with the intelligence and tendency to scheme of devils with the murderous impulses of demons.
Which is fine and all... but doesn't map nicely to Yugoloths.
Looking through the MM, Yugoloths do nicely fit the tropes of Neutral Evil. They're mercenaries who are entirely self serving and have no loyalties to anyone or any cause. They are the embodiment of selfishness. They're avarice opposed to devil's tyranny and demon's anarchy.
The problem is... they're completely and totally motivated by self interests, but we have no idea what those interests are. The Monster Manual and Tome of Foes both mention they work for hire but neglects to mention what they're paid with. Just gold? Diamonds? Magic?
Is it souls? And if so, why? Because it doesn't sound like Yugoloths are interested in making more of themselves (or are even able to do so).
