Pathfinder 1E Are demons and devils too similar?

Hussar · Jul 11, 2014

Savage Wombat said:
And this is where we need Shemeska to drop in and lay the PS details out for us.

And that, right there, is where my beef starts. I should not have to consult setting specific canon to answer any core questions. It's like saying we need [MENTION=3817]Cam Banks[/MENTION] to come and settle any questions about draconic canon because of his knowledge of Dragonlance.

Savage Wombat · Jul 11, 2014

Hussar said:
And that, right there, is where my beef starts. I should not have to consult setting specific canon to answer any core questions. It's like saying we need [MENTION=3817]Cam Banks[/MENTION] to come and settle any questions about draconic canon because of his knowledge of Dragonlance.

<sigh heavily> I didn't say [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] should tell you the OFFICIAL ANSWERS. I said she could give the Planescape interpretation, just as you gave yours. So that you could see the way she thinks the fiends should be defined. You know, because this is a debate and all. Or are you insisting that your version should be "official canon"?

Hussar · Jul 11, 2014

To be fair, Shemeska is a dude.

Ruin Explorer · Jul 11, 2014

Morrus said:
It's not so much "are they too similar?" as "do we really need to divide them into two groups?" Demons, devils, daemon, all those other words you used... they're all the same thing really.

I prefer the idea of getting rid if the big categories, and just making each demondevildaemonthing unique.

This!

Separating them at all is the big problem with them, because it leads to a lot of them being nigh-identical to other ones (let's not even start on Balors and Pit Fiends!), only with slightly different resists and spells (ugh, the fiddliest fiddly stuff in fiddle-land!).

Making them all lower-planar beings of certain alignments and focusing on making each one unique and interesting would have been a totally awesome decision. Sadly, it remains "the road not taken".

If they are to be separated, they really need to just, well, ditch most of them, because as Hussar and others have pointed out, so many on each side run directly or significantly "against type" and on top of that the vast majority of them on both sides are pretty dull. I think we could pare back to a few genuinely interesting designs, get some new designs in, and make things viable, but again, this appears to be "the road not taken", because, I guess, tradition. I really don't believe that deleting most devils/demons (but keeping genuine iconics like the Marilith and Vrock) would actually have rocked the boat much. Maybe the MM will surprise me.

Savage Wombat · Jul 11, 2014

Hussar said:
To be fair, Shemeska is a dude.

I know, but it's not my fault he chose a female fiend as an avatar.

Shemeska · Jul 11, 2014

Mercurius · Jul 11, 2014

Morlock said:
Oh, and IIRC, "daemon" is the more "authentic" spelling. Again IIRC, it's a Greek word and refers not to what we think of as demons, but to "outsider" servants and spirits in general (demons & angels). Check that for accuracy before you repeat it, though, been a long time since I read any mythology.

This is correct. Daemon comes from Greek and were spirits and beings often associated with nature - generally benevolent. "Daemon" has also been co-opted by Carl Jung and other psychologists such as James Hillman, who see it as a kind of inner guiding spirit - not synonymous with the soul, but actually different from us (whereas the soul is the inner self of the person, within which the daemon communicates via inspiration, imagination, hopes and dreams, etc).

The word "demon" is a Christianization of "daemon," and also a, ah, demonization of it and what it refers to. Pagan nature spirits = bad (in Medieval Christianity).

As for demons and devils in D&D, it really is quite simple and comes down to demons are chaotic and devils are lawful. Now I personally don't think D&D exploits this differentiation as much as they could. I'd rather see demons as ravaging raiders from the Abyss, sort of like the horrors in Earthdawn, and devils as more sly and cunning. Demons want to destroy, devils want to rule.

Savage Wombat · Jul 11, 2014

It occurred to me what bothered me about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s "destroyer vs. corrupter" dichotomy. And I'm not saying it's wrong, or that my complaint can't be addressed easily.

Saying that "Demons kill and destroy, while Devils corrupt and blacken" seems to me to imply that (1) demons aren't very smart, and (2) demons care a lot about physical objects for an outer planar avatar of Chaotic Evil.

A Vrock wants to hurt and maim, yes. But a Glabrezu wants to give you the power to hurt and maim others and spread the damage around. A Marilith wants to enable the forces of Chaos to hurt and maim on a grand scale, and rip whole nations apart. And a Balor should want to destroy the very nature of goodness itself - to turn humanity into Lovecraft-esque cults of debauchery and madness.

At any non-mook power level, even the dumb fiends are as smart as humans. The powerful ones have superhuman intellects, immortal lifespans and a form constructed from pure evil. They want more than just to kill as many people as possible and spread their entrails around.

Cam Banks · Jul 11, 2014

Did somebody have a question about draconic canon in Dragonlance?

Summoned,
Cam

Remathilis · Jul 11, 2014

I actually liked how Pathfinder tied demons to the seven cardinal sins: sloth (dretch), lust (succubus), wrath (vrock), greed (glaberzu), envy (maralith), gluttony (hezerou), and pride (balor). Other demons are variants on the theme. Gives them a whole "pain and suffering" vs. Wanton destruction theme.