D&D 4E 4E Devils vs. Demons article

[Knightfall]

I don't get this oft-repeated analogy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ultimate Universe titles get released in parallel to the standard universe?

4e seems to be the Ultimate Universe completely at the expense of the existing universe.

QFT.

 

[sckeener]

If they do this...I know I am going to continue to use material from previous editions...

Most likely if they do it, I'll probably make FC1 demon lords into devil lords in exile.

The one thing that rubs me wrong about that...I hate the idea of them being considered less than a Lord of Hell.

I'm not sure what to do about Demogorgon as the Prince of Demons...

I can't really stomach him being second fiddle to Asmodeus.

I hate the fluff that I would have to create to describe such a relationship....

edit: and I'd hate to re-describe the baboon headed prince to fit an elemental image....I'd almost rather see him go into the Far Realm. Actually I'm fine with the Far Realm gaining some of the demon lords and the rest being considered Devil's in exile.

 

[Shade]

D&D can have more than one setting.

True, and they should. However, rather than creating a new setting, they are cramming a brand-new setting under the guise of being merely core flavor. What's worse...it's spreading into existing campaign settings like the Forgotten Realms.

If WotC doesn't release a Planescape setting book -- remember, they've said they currently plan to release a setting a year under the new edition -- that includes the old cosmology, someone else will. Paizo or Necromancer or Green Ronin won't be able to use Sigil, or the silly 2E plane names, but pretty much everything else is public domain, or close enough that they can approximate it without too much trouble.

At best, we'll see a Planescape or Greyhawk book in 3 years (one a year, FR first, Eberron second). That will be about 2 years away from the next edition. Why bother? Why should all the folks with long-running campaigns set in the current core have to wait?

You have 30 years of material relating to the old cosmology. At some point, someone will produce 4E support for it. You just have to hang tight until then.

Yep. I'll be happy to put money in their pockets. Unfortunately, though, much of it is WotC IP, so we won't see it until 5e, when they will probably put it back based on negative feedback.

The assumption here is that the standard cosmology was some sort of draw to the brand in the first place and not something that pushed people away or was ignored entirely.

It was for me. I've seen plenty of other posts on these message boards and others indicating the same. The popularity of the Fiendish Codices, the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, the continued clamor for Planescape and Greyhawk...all this would seem to indicate this assumption holds some weight.

 

[erf_beto]

I haven't read everything in the thread but, did anyone else noticed how this fallen angel concept is similar to that Demon game from White Wolf's World of Darkness? I didnt get to play it, but as far as I know, Lucifer had offered the apple to Adam and Eve, who were basicaly animals, in order to awaken them, so they could realize and appreciate God's creation (there was a passage that made me laugh, about how the angels arranged a simphony, but the man and the woman didnt care about it, and went away looking for food). Then God spoke and cursed Lucifer and his lot, imprisioning them. The game focuses a lot on True Names - wich is one of the ways to summon/control a fallen angel away from its prison. On that setting, not every demon is evil, but being forsaken by God made most of them that way.

Ok, D&D has devils and demons, but even in the article we hear about how they both originated from the same real world myth. Either way, I've always thought of devils and demons that way, but I wasn't surprised with their roles as much as I was with the intention to make them clearer - that's really nice!

And there's another thing in the article that made me think about WoD: the Abbyss being described as a burned hole in the very structure of the plane, tainting those who come near, and this "Elemental Tempest". In 'Mage: the Ascension' there was an Avatar Storm, the Maelstrom, some sort of hurricane of fragmented souls and spirit shards, that was pratically ripping the cosmos apart (you know, 'end of the world' stuff). I know there isnt much to compare here, but made me go back to my Mage Campaign... good times, good times :\

 

[Glyfair]

However, rather than creating a new setting, they are cramming a brand-new setting under the guise of being merely core flavor.

I don't consider it a "setting" until they have a map of a world and details about how that map matters to the flavor. I don't believe will ever see that, per se. Non-setting adventures might be placed in it, but only enough world info to run the adventure.

What we have is a set of "core assumptions." If you are playing D&D they will assume you are using these assumptions in the non-setting specific material. If you setting disagrees, you'll need to change whatever is appropriate. This is just how it was before Greyhawk was published.

 

[The_Gneech]

People think the outer planes are set, clearly-defined things set out on a big wheel, but really they're just a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, planey-waney ... stuff.

Sorry, that one got away from me.

-The Gneech

 

[Shade]

I don't consider it a "setting" until they have a map of a world and details about how that map matters to the flavor. I don't believe will ever see that, per se. Non-setting adventures might be placed in it, but only enough world info to run the adventure.

You are entitled to your opinion. To me it's semantics...if it has a story, a cosmology, and a bestiary, then it is a setting. Since the monsters and planes described don't fit into any of the existing settings, I see it as a unique setting.

Regardless of what setting you are using, you'll have to make changes. If you don't, then you are playing in this setting, are you not?

What we have is a set of "core assumptions." If you are playing D&D they will assume you are using these assumptions in the non-setting specific material. If you setting disagrees, you'll need to change whatever is appropriate. This is just how it was before Greyhawk was published.

You say tomato, I say tomahto. Either way, DMs are gonna have to do some serious work to make it work. That seems to fly in the face of 4e's supposed simplification.

 

[Sundragon2012]

...snip...Either way, DMs are gonna have to do some serious work to make it work. That seems to fly in the face of 4e's supposed simplification.

It is in my opinion way, way simpler than working to discard 30yrs of dros...erm....canon including the Great Wheel, Planescape assumptions, etc. for DMs like myself who have discarded the Great Weel of Alignment years ago.

Its not going to effect my game much either way, I have used my own cosmology for a long time. I like to see D&D more into the modern era with a more mythic sounding cosmology as opposed to one based solidly in mechanical assumptions ie. alignment. If alignment isn't going to have much or any mechanical role in the game, the Great Wheel with its compartmentalized planes based completely on the cosmic reality of lock-step alignment has no place except as one setting out of many. It certainly cannot be assumed to be the metasetting of the D&D multiverse anymore.

The Great Wheel is a sacred cow that needed to be brained and butchered years ago.



Sundragon

 

[The Little Raven]

It was for me. I've seen plenty of other posts on these message boards and others indicating the same. The popularity of the Fiendish Codices, the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, the continued clamor for Planescape and Greyhawk...all this would seem to indicate this assumption holds some weight.

Hate to break it to you, but if Planescape and Greyhawk were really that popular, they'd still be in print, because either WotC could make money off them, or a 3rd party company would have licensed them (like what happened with Ravenloft and Dragonlance). The reason that FR was the only official setting to make it to third edition via WotC's hands, initially? It was the only one that could support itself. Dragonlance was their second best-selling setting (hence the reason they launched the Saga version back in the 1990s), which is why they published the core campaign setting (always the best-seller of a setting line).

And demon/devil-related material isn't popular because of D&D's Great Wheel. It's popular because evil is something that interests people and nothing says evil like a demon.

 

[Sir Brennen]

You say tomato, I say tomahto. Either way, DMs are gonna have to do some serious work to make it work. That seems to fly in the face of 4e's supposed simplification.

If you use the implied setting as is, it is simple. No added work there.

If you prefer the Great Wheel and stuff presented in FC1, there's a wealth of info already and you can just use that. Barely any added work, if any. Fluff is fluff.

If you don't use either option, well, your homebrew cosmos was going to be a lot of work anyway, regardless of edition.