D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Rosemary's Baby

[gyor]

Traditionally (in real world myths) Succubi are demons, so I'm a little annoyed at the change. But only a very little. More annoying, as usual, are the way the poll answers are written. One of them I didn't even respond to because the bulk of the answer, after the yes/no part, wasn't something I agreed with. (My answer would have been basically, yes, but for this reason, not the one you provided.)

Traditionally at least in Judeo-Christian mythology Demons and Devils are the same thing, fallen Angels.

If they write the lore right you can still still the Succubi with demons or devils.

What could be fun is a Succubi vs. Night Hag war, as a weird mirror to the blood war.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Traditionally (in real world myths) Succubi are demons, so I'm a little annoyed at the change.

Though, traditionally, demons are a catch-all category for all sorts of hellish creatures. Whereas D&D hell is for devils only.

I like the article's compromise, though. Everything that makes evil outsiders more of a spectrum instead of "Camp Chaotic" and "Camp Lawful" is interesting. The nether planes are varied, their inhabitant should reflect that variety. Neat way to tie devilish and demonic succubi together, having the cambion as something defined is nice, too.

Mentioning the incubus as concept is neat, too, but I'm not sure such a creature needs to be gendered - they should seduce whatever they want, having succubus/incubus merely as mortal terms.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Most disappointing article to date, Succubi are demons, and their lord is Malcanthet, who has her own Abyssal layer.

This makes them like a watered down Yugoloth, and Night Hags kick it with devils. not demons.

Agreed. The original succu-gal is still the best:

 

[Shemeska]

Succubi are demons. Full stop.

It's misguided to try to make them otherwise in an attempt to bridge the gulf between decades of 1e/2e/3e 'succubi as demons' continuity and the 4e 'succubi as devils' mistake. Among the 4e changes to core D&D concepts, that was one of the most arbitrary and bizarre, and among the most frequently criticized.

With 5e they have the chance to regain popularity for D&D and repair the rifts of the last few years, but trying to straddle and find a compromise position that ends up pleasing neither fans of the 1e/2e/3e continuity or the radical change from 4e is probably ill-advised in this instance. Let the 4e 'succubi as devils' idea fade away as a thing unless it's brought back as a setting specific change if they think there's a market for a Nentir Vale / PoL campaign setting.

 

[Mistwell]

With 5e they have the chance to regain popularity for D&D and repair the rifts of the last few years, but trying to straddle and find a compromise position that ends up pleasing neither fans of the 1e/2e/3e continuity or the radical change from 4e is probably ill-advised in this instance.

Look at the thread you're in. The majority here, by a fair margin, said they like this change. What's your basis for declaring this is ill-advised in this instance, given both their polling data and the resulting comments here all seem to indicate the other direction?

 

[Lancelot]

I've been playing D&D for 30 years. I'm as grognard as they come, and I have a deep and abiding love for 2e Planescape.

Having said that, succubi = devils made a lot of logical sense to me. Demons and Devils needed better differentiation. Demons as destroyers and Devils as corrupters appeals very much. It gives them stronger motivation for conflict, more differentiation for story-telling. The old Planescape line that the only difference between demons and devils is you get paid before the job by the former, and after the job by the latter always annoyed me. I don't care if it was tongue-in-cheek. It struck too close to home that the two races were horribly similar in both design, motivations and behaviors.

So, my personal preference is that succubi are devils. However, I thoroughly applaud the current column seeking to strike a balance where we can all have our individual choices. I also thoroughly disagree with anybody posting that succubi must be demons, because that's the only thing that makes sense. Gary Gygax didn't get everything right in 1e. The original bard class was substandard, psionics were an abomination, weapon speed factors make my eyes glaze over, the random prostitutes table in the DMG was not our hobby's most shining moment, and devils... the masters of temptation... should have had an appropriately iconic tempter (or temptress) in the original MM.

[...and for anyone who says: they did, and it was the erinyes... bah, humbug. That's something that 3e got right - mythologically, the erinyes is a winged fury of vengeance, not a busty diTerlizzi redhead in lacy lingerie...]

 

[pemerton]

Succubi are demons. Full stop.

It's misguided to try to make them otherwise in an attempt to bridge the gulf between decades of 1e/2e/3e 'succubi as demons' continuity and the 4e 'succubi as devils' mistake. Among the 4e changes to core D&D concepts, that was one of the most arbitrary and bizarre, and among the most frequently criticized.

"Arbitrary" means without reason. There was a clear reason behind the change. The designers set it out in Worlds & Monsters. Posters on this thread have articulated it.

What's bizarre to me is that this change prompts so much heat from certain quarters, whereas 3E's change of orcs from lawful evil to chaotic evil - thereby overturning decades of tradition with a respect to a monster that sees much more table play than succubi - is treated as an "Oh well, you can house rule it back if you want to" event. How hard is it for those dedicated to Planescape continuity to houserule back 4e (or Next) succubi (in 4e, the Manual of the Planes even told you how to do it!).

These are story matters, not matters of fundamental mechanics. Notions like "misguided" and "they're wrong, full stop" don't apply.

 

[gyor]

Succubi are demons. Full stop.

It's misguided to try to make them otherwise in an attempt to bridge the gulf between decades of 1e/2e/3e 'succubi as demons' continuity and the 4e 'succubi as devils' mistake. Among the 4e changes to core D&D concepts, that was one of the most arbitrary and bizarre, and among the most frequently criticized.

With 5e they have the chance to regain popularity for D&D and repair the rifts of the last few years, but trying to straddle and find a compromise position that ends up pleasing neither fans of the 1e/2e/3e continuity or the radical change from 4e is probably ill-advised in this instance. Let the 4e 'succubi as devils' idea fade away as a thing unless it's brought back as a setting specific change if they think there's a market for a Nentir Vale / PoL campaign setting.

The polling data so far suggests that support for the compromise is strong, far to strong for 4e supporters alone. This appears to only bother a few people relatively.

 

[Alzrius]

Look at the thread you're in. The majority here, by a fair margin, said they like this change. What's your basis for declaring this is ill-advised in this instance, given both their polling data and the resulting comments here all seem to indicate the other direction?

Well, there's always the ubiquitous disclaimer that internet comments and online polls don't necessarily mean anything.

That said, I personally think it's ill-advised because - even leaving aside the knee-jerk dismissal of tradition as a legitimate factor - if you follow with the idea that "devils are corrupters, demons are destroyers," then succubi make much better demons than they do devils.

The idea that succubi - or at least, D&D succubi - use sex and temptation to lead mortals down a dark path always struck me as being misguided. Succubi are there to kill people using sex; that's why they energy drain you with a kiss (or any other carnal act). Most people in the game world are 1st-level, which makes even a single instance of passion with a succubi deadly, and even most heroes won't be able to withstand very much before being reduced to a dead, withered husk.

True, succubi do often use deception to accomplish this, but that's a question of methodology; "destruction" and "corruption" are goals, and are silent as to how those goals are achieved. You can use subterfuge and lies to get into a position to put a knife in someone's back, and they'll be just as dead as if you'd torn their head off; that's the lesson in destruction that succubi showcase.

To me, they've always been quintessential demons; they want you to pucker up and die.

 

[Weather Report]

The majority here, by a fair margin, said they like this change. What's your basis for declaring this is ill-advised in this instance, given both their polling data and the resulting comments here all seem to indicate the other direction?

It is looking that way, unfortunately, but, as has been said, and we all know, house-ruled in one sentence "Succubus are demons in this campaign."