D&D 4E What do you think of the 4E background to demons & devils?

The 4E demons & devil's thread seems to have devolved into calling the other side wrong for liking or disliking the background to devils & demons in 4E as revealed in the most recent Design & Development article.

So, let's put it to a vote. What do you think of division between devils & demons revealed in the article?

A pointless change for the sake of change.

I hate it.

joe b.

I like it.

But then I probably would have liked any replacement of the Great Wheel. I've got books that detail the Great Wheel already (3.0 MotP, 3.5 DMG, was it in the 3.0 DMG too? And let's not even get started on the ton of 2.0 books that were printed on the subject). Why do I need recycled fluff? If I want to use that cosmology in my campaign, I've already got all the material I need to do so. So give me something new.

I love the changes, but then again, I really only started playing in 3rd Edition. Throughout that edition it was hard to tell some of the Arch-fiends and Demon-Lords apart. The two mirror each other so closely in form and function in that you really only needed to choose the one that you liked better and describe it as "Devil" or "Demon" to suit your purpose.

So yeah I fall in the camp of exactly the people they are making this change for.

Commonblade said:

I love the changes, but then again, I really only started playing in 3rd Edition. Throughout that edition it was hard to tell some of the Arch-fiends and Demon-Lords apart. The two mirror each other so closely in form and function in that you really only needed to choose the one that you liked better and describe it as "Devil" or "Demon" to suit your purpose.

So yeah I fall in the camp of exactly the people they are making this change for.

Click to expand...

Stole the words right out of my mouth...err, keyboard. I love it.

I voted "In the middle".

I am happy with: Fallen Angel concept (similar to my own homebrew!)

I am unhappy with: Division by appearance, loss of erinyes/succubus as distinct entities.

RC

I vote: Meh.

My least favorite part about it, actually, is that in three years freelancers are going to re-retcon everything back into it anyway, except we'll still have demons as corrupted elementals and stuff. So by the "end" of 4.0 we'll have a confusing mis-mash that tries to please everyone but ends up just as confusing as what we have now.

Mark my words.

I'm also a little concerned about what happens to "scheming" demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet. It's ironic that the Demonomicon is probably the most popular thing to hit Dragon in a decade and they're already making major changes to the popular ideas introduced in it. That's unfortunate, but I can see why they're doing it.

It's also unclear to what degree the planes will be akin to an afterlife, and the role of mortal souls on the planes remains unclear. I really (really) liked the idea that some demons were the "evolved" souls of wicked mortals (this is Orcus's origin, after all), and it seems like we may be losing that.

As a designer, I can see how to take these elements, weave them into the existing lore of the game, and come up with something that is both interesting and new and true to the tradition of the game. The problem is I just did that last year in a reasonably popular hardcover, and I'm not all that interested in doing it again either in a published product or in my own campaigns.

So while I don't hate the change, I grow increasingly wary of fluff changes that take the game away from the tradition I've enjoyed my whole life.

--Erik

Commonblade said:

So yeah I fall in the camp of exactly the people they are making this change for.

Click to expand...

If you're the kind of folks WotC is aiming these changes at---then boy am I happy you came along!

I've been playing since 1979, and this change (like much of what I've seen of 4e so far) is a welcome breath of fresh air.

I see it as change for the sake of change. The sheep will love it though.