Changes to Devils and Demons

[MoogleEmpMog]

Awesome.

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.

 

[delericho]

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.

No, I don't like this change.

 

[Sammael]

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...

And the succubus/erinyes thing? Bloody stupid.

 

[Av3rnus]

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?

 

[Piratecat]

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.

 

[blargney the second]

Not sure what you guys are worried about - it looks great to me!

 

[Aloïsius]

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". :\

 

[Sammael]

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.

 

[Jer]

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?

 

[mhensley]

It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.

I'm really glad I put mine on ebay a few days ago.