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

[Klaus]

Succubi are fiends who incite lust and passion, who tempt mortals to defy taboos and the laws of both god and man. They're chaos incarnate, the chaos of the heart and loins.

Devils are fiends that tempt using contracts and formal bargains. They use the tools of law to further evil, and the tools of evil (torture and tyranny) to further law.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for succubi to be devils. Speaking in terms of 1e-3e, of course.

I liked succubi as demons, as I see demons inciting mortals into sins of passion (lust, wrath, etc), whereas devils trick mortals into sins of the mind (pride, corruption, etc).

 

[D.Shaffer]

Succubi are fiends who incite lust and passion, who tempt mortals to defy taboos and the laws of both god and man. They're chaos incarnate, the chaos of the heart and loins.

Devils are fiends that tempt using contracts and formal bargains. They use the tools of law to further evil, and the tools of evil (torture and tyranny) to further law.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for succubi to be devils. Speaking in terms of 1e-3e, of course.

Look at it this way, which is how I suspect WotC is thinking about things.
4ed Demons are agents of Entropy. Ultimately they want to tear the universe back into its component parts and revel in it. Destruction is a drug to them. The smarter ones out how to get LARGE hits at once (AKA, Demogorgon causing the world to go mad) while the more mindless ones go for the immediate hit.

4th ed Devils are agents of corruption. They want to own the world and shape it in their image. Twist the inhabitants to not just be like them, but to think that's what they always wanted. They dont want to destroy your soul, they want to ultimately own it.

Which of those two does the succubus most fit?

 

[Ripzerai]

The Dome of Creation, Hidden Vale, and Abyss are the only specified outer planes in Krynn's cosmology, as described in DLA.

DLA never calls these "outer planes." They could, based on this book alone, just as easily be realms within the outer planes - which is indeed what the Planescape setting said they were. This in no way contradicts DLA. Zhan, the Forest Beyond the World exists. It's not a plane in itself, but it exists, and DLA and the Krynnish sages aren't wrong about that, 'cause they never said it was a plane.

Tracy Hickman's also said before that this was the intended makeup of the planes

That doesn't matter. What Tracy Hickman says isn't official in the same way as what's actually printed. The Dragonlance setting has been linked to the Great Wheel since 1984, regardless of what Tracy Hickman says on his own time.

Now, the 3e campaign setting that you helped work on is official, but it's a marked change from the way things always were before.

In some ways, the 3e cosmology directly contradicted the DA flavor text, since it lumped Zhan, the Forest Beyond the World, in with the Hidden Vale, where in 1e they were as much separate places as the Dome of Creation and the Abyss (which is to say, we didn't know if they were truly separate places or not - they could have all been separate places on the same plane, or separate places on 17 different planes, or even places that are part of the Material Plane. They could have been different planets in Krynnspace; the Dome of Creation could have been (and I assumed it was, when Spelljammer came out) the same as Krynnspace's crystal sphere.

It's misleading to act as if the 3e Dragonlance cosmology is the same as the 1e one. It isn't. It's a new and simplified thing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

On the contrary, adherence to tradition is a good thing in and of itself.

Adherence to good ideas is a good thing in and of itself. Adherence to stupid ideas is a stupid thing in and of itself. If a traditional idea is good, it's a good idea. If a traditional idea is bad, it's a bad idea. If a non-traditional idea is good, it's a good idea. If a non-traditional idea is bad it's a bad idea. This is a tautology that doesn't need to consider the status of the idea as traditional or non-traditional in order to cash out the good or bad. In other words, that an idea is traditional is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. Therefore, being traditional is not a good predictor of whether an idea is good or bad, with the following caveat: traditional ideas that were bad ideas at the time they came into currency are not likely to have survived because the people who believed them were worse off than the people who did not. Traditional ideas are therefore more likely to have been good ideas at the time. It may be the case that for a particular traditional idea, it is still a good idea because the conditions it applies to have changed little. However, since this can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the likelihood of it being originally a good idea is uncertain, an idea's status as traditional is again rendered irrelevant.

Adhering to traditions produces a number of advantages - it helps us use newer accessories with older ones. It allows older themes and plotlines to be brought forward and elaborated it on in newer adventures and sourcebooks. It introduces worthy elements to a new generation of gamers. It makes those of us who were fans of the older material happy, and doesn't make any difference one way or the other to people who didn't care much about the planes.

Replace "tradition" with "continuity" and you might have an argument here.

Novelty for novelty's sake, on the other hand, isn't justifiable.

Where does this statement come from? Who said any of this was for novelty's sake? As an example, take the proposed changes to the planes. They're not for novelty's sake. Rich Baker pointed out that one of the strengths of the changes is that you can plug any plane you like into it, without having to retcon anything. That's a deliberate design element that demonstrates that the changes were not for their own sake but for the sake of achieving a particular goal.

A lot of us want specifically to see WotC's IP elaborated on and reinvigorated in new products, new online Dragon articles and so on. We don't care about generic versions of Gehenna - we want to see the D&D Gehenna, with its mysterious general, its Tower Arcane, ts lich-lord Mellifleur, its barghests, the frozen realm of Loviatar, the abandoned realm of Iyachtu Xvim. With a new default cosmology, this is less likely.

You certainly know a lot about Gehenna. Perhaps you have read articles and books that deal with that plane. Perhaps the existence of those articles renders future articles on the same subject redundant, and unjustified by an edition change. I know that if I want to know more about Gehenna while I'm playing 4th edition, I'll consult the Fiendish Codex II. I have not seen anything in the previews that indicates I won't be able to carry fluff forward between editions.

I think a substantial amount of the older material will be carried over to the new default, but the amount of twisting and rationalizing will make things awkward both for the professional designers stuck trying to make sense of the resulting mess and for ordinary gamers trying to either use new material with the old stuff or old material with the new.

Or, it'll be totally smooth because you can just chuck the core cosmology and replace it with the Great Wheel wholesale.

 

[Ripzerai]

Garbage.

Oh, eloquently argued, truly thought-provoking. Clearly tradition is not valuable and novelty for its own sake is good in and of itself. Keeping, archiving, preserving, and curating creative works couldn't possibly be a valuable act. Maintaining continuity, bridging elements stemming back from the very roots of the game, helping maintain the suspension of disbelief, making it easier for new and old DMs to continue mining, being inspired by, and making use of the works of the past, not throwing decades of work into the gutter, reintroducing the things older generations loved to the newer ones - I'm not sure how I could have ever thought that these things were important at all.

It's how well thought-out and considered your posts are that make them so worthwhile. Truly, I'm chastised.

No, I'm sorry. Change for change's sake is foolishness. I'm not saying change is bad in itself, but tradition is undoubtedly a good. There is a middle ground, of course - I'm all for actual improvements. But this has to be balanced with the knowledge that tradition and continuity is also important. This should be a priority in any new design; not the only priority, but certainly a priority.

 

[Ripzerai]

Adherence to good ideas is a good thing in and of itself. Adherence to stupid ideas is a stupid thing in and of itself.

Agreed, but then I don't think any part of the Great Wheel cosmology is "stupid." Quirky, yes, especially in its initial concept, but it's been built up by so many great minds and fascinating creators, both "official" and fan-based, that it's extremely worthwhile.

Replace "tradition" with "continuity" and you might have an argument here.

For my purposes, they're synonyms.

Where does this statement come from? Who said any of this was for novelty's sake?

Nobody; I'm making a parallel. Or, rather, I'm reversing the argument. I'm saying novelty isn't any more an inherit "good" than tradition is. In fact, I'd argue it's less so. Nobody's put decades of effort and "sweat equity" into ideas that haven't been developed yet.

Or, it'll be totally smooth because you can just chuck the core cosmology and replace it with the Great Wheel wholesale.

That's not the issue. There's no question it doesn't have to affect my campaign if I don't want it to.

But. It affects all future modules, web articles, and supplements. It affects what new gamers learn, and what I'm going to be able to talk to them about online. I don't think we should fool ourselves that, for those of us who frequent internet message boards, that is an important part of the experience, regardless of what we do at our own kitchen tables. Selfishly, perhaps, I don't want to be part of an aging and diminishing group of old grognards.

A 4e Greyhawk or Planescape setting that uses the old cosmology? We won't see it. At best, we'll see some of the old planes described as "Astral dominions," with the Abyss still in the Elemental Chaos.

And, frankly, I don't care about Necromancer's version of the old-school planes, or Green Ronin's (although I own all their existing planar books), or Mongoose's, because they won't have all the distinctive IP that made the old stuff worthwhile. A series of 17 outer planes isn't so cool in itself; it's the characters, plotlines, and sites that were developed over the decades in all three (four, really) versions of the game to date that I love.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

LOUD....NOISES!!

Man, passions running high on this here thread. Not that it matters, but I could give a hoot if they keep the Great Wheel. Baker already said you can put any darn thing you want in the Astral Sea, so go wild.

I'd like to see core support for Demondands, yugoloths, slaadi and such. I like me some freaky outsiders.

I can see some folks who might need a nice hot toddy or something. Maybe a vicodin?

Deep, cleansing breaths....

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Agreed, but then I don't think any part of the Great Wheel cosmology is "stupid." Quirky, yes, especially in its initial concept, but it's been built up by so many great minds and fascinating creators, both "official" and fan-based, that it's extremely worthwhile.
(snip)
But. It affects all future modules, web articles, and supplements. It affects what new gamers learn, and what I'm going to be able to talk to them about online.

A 4e Greyhawk or Planescape setting that uses the old cosmology? We won't see it. At best, we'll see some of the old planes described as "Astral dominions," with the Abyss still in the Elemental Chaos.

And, frankly, I don't care about Necromancer's version of the old-school planes, or Green Ronin's (although I own all their existing planar books), or Mongoose's, because they won't have all the distinctive IP that made the old stuff worthwhile. A series of 17 outer planes isn't so cool in itself; it's the characters, plotlines, and sites that were developed over the decades in all three (four, really) versions of the game to date that I love.

This is a terrible argument in favor of the Great Wheel.

"Well, sure it looks kind of silly and there's nothing really cool about it based on what it is. But if you've been following it for 25 years it's amazing! No-one is going to reprint this information, of course, so you'll really just get a broad overview of the silly and boring parts, but trust me, it's much better than getting something new because it's old and I know a lot about it."

 

[Ripzerai]

This is a terrible argument in favor of the Great Wheel.

"Well, sure it looks kind of silly and there's nothing really cool about it based on what it is. But if you've been following it for 25 years it's amazing! No-one is going to reprint this information, of course, so you'll really just get a broad overview of the silly and boring parts, but trust me, it's much better than getting something new because it's old and I know a lot about it."

That would be a terrible argument, if it had been the one I made.

But I don't think it looks silly. There is something cool about the interaction of primal Chaos, ultimate Law, pure Evil and pure Good. The particular configuration of 17 planes, in and of itself, isn't either good or bad. But the vivid landscapes described by Jeff Grubb in the original MotP? Very cool.

There aren't any boring or silly parts.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Agreed, but then I don't think any part of the Great Wheel cosmology is "stupid."

Neither do I. I'm just bringing attention to the fact that ideas are strong on their own strengths and weak on their own weaknesses, rather than any correspondence to tradition.

Nobody; I'm making a parallel. Or, rather, I'm reversing the argument. I'm saying novelty isn't any more an inherit "good" than tradition is. In fact, I'd argue it's less so. Nobody's put decades of effort and "sweat equity" into ideas that haven't been developed yet.

Well, to answer my own question lots of people are saying this is change for the sake of change, but not anyone involved in the development process. I'm trying to point out that there's nothing to the claim but hysteria.

That's not the issue. There's no question it doesn't have to affect my campaign if I don't want it to.

But. It affects all future modules, web articles, and supplements. It affects what new gamers learn, and what I'm going to be able to talk to them about online. I don't think we should fool ourselves that, for those of us who frequent internet message boards, that is an important part of the experience, regardless of what we do at our own kitchen tables. Selfishly, perhaps, I don't want to be part of an aging and diminishing group of old grognards.

DM: This planar adventure takes place in Pandemonium.
Player: Which one, the Great Wheel Pandemonium, or the Astral Sea Pandemonium?
DM: Considering that they're identical, who the heck cares?
Player: I do. How can I possibly be part of an aging and diminishing group of old grognards if I don't refuse to play in the new setting?

A 4e Greyhawk or Planescape setting that uses the old cosmology? We won't see it. At best, we'll see some of the old planes described as "Astral dominions," with the Abyss still in the Elemental Chaos.

What would a Greyhawk setting even look like? If it's identical to the old Greyhawk stuff, people will complain that it's just reprinted material that they could get out of the older books. If it changes anything, people will complain that it's wrecking Greyhawk continuity, obviating the point of recreating the classic setting.

And, frankly, I don't care about Necromancer's version of the old-school planes, or Green Ronin's (although I own all their existing planar books), or Mongoose's, because they won't have all the distinctive IP that made the old stuff worthwhile. A series of 17 outer planes isn't so cool in itself; it's the characters, plotlines, and sites that were developed over the decades in all three (four, really) versions of the game to date that I love.

How nice that we still have those things, and that they've been so portable between editions. I see Necromancer's role as providing me with some updated demon lord stats, if necessary, so that I don't have to homebrew them. We don't need them to reinvent the IP, just fill the holes in the monster department.