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

[catsclaw227]

And on a third note, this is once again in the category of 'problems I don't have'.

But see, why does this have to be a 'problem' for others to find it exciting. It's not like they cracked open a box of OMG, Never Been Imagined, but these kinds of ideas can spark the imagination in some (in this case, me) and get me thinking about my own cosmology in a different way. I think there are a lot of people stuck in the Great Wheel kind of thinking and this can help cultivate imaginitive thought.

For example, I like what you did with the Slaad Lords, but for some others it's a 'problem they don't have'. It doesn't make it any less cool.

 

[helium3]

What is this, the State of the Union address?

I will now stand and applaud this statement.

 

[Sir Brennen]

So for me, the descriptions of demons and devils are nothing special, just extrapolations of their traditional philosophies, and the Outer Planes are unnecessarily explained.

I think it will show more than just "philosophical" differences - the designers have also stated that the new arrangement will influence the physical nature of demons and devils (devils, for instance, will generally look more human), and what magical/monstrous abilities they'll have. It's been mentioned that one of the goals is to have a battle against a demon feel different that one against a devil. So there will be design guidelines behind the fluff. In the current and past editions, sometimes the only real difference between a demon and a a similar, corresponding devil is the alignment, and that's about it.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, that was uber-crappy. All I can do now is hope that WotC (or even a third-party) does something to keep the much more interesting and well-developed Great Wheel cosmology.

 

[Glyfair]

I think it will show more than just "philosophical" differences...

This also has the potential to be a lot better base for a homebrew setting. It sounds a lot like the planes will only have a limited amount of hard ties to the other planes. If you want a setting without the Abyss, you can still use the cosmology without having to worry about a domino effect of changes because you eliminated one plane.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I want to see the fiend associated with Water. Mmm.

I am a little disappointed that Demons are just "Kill destroy obliterate". That makes them pretty one-dimensional. Although I suppose that Demon Lords who plot could be looking to basically 'destroy everything' but on a more long term basis, more like anarchists and terrorists rather than simply arson or a murder spree.

But I like this. It's distinct.

Monte Cook's Galchutt (and, I believe, the Book of Fiends' Qlippiloths, however you spell it) definitely show the "plotting to unmake creation" thing can have lots of levels to it, and can make for very scary villains.

Multiversal terrorists indeed.

 

[Rechan]

Or any other creation myth where an orderly world is brought out of chaotic matter. It doesn't have to be the big bang, just the frothing mass out of which the world was brought. It was always there and will always be there.

Reminds me of the Japanese Shinto creation myth. The two gods created Japan out of the swirling goo, they went down there and humped all the Gods into being (No joke), then she died giving birth to the sun god or firegod or something.

 

[TheArcane]

As coyote6 points out, this is the cosmology of a new campaign setting, unrelated to the old implied setting.

True, however, when this new cosmology causes vast changes to existing mechanics, from the very nature of demons vs. devils, looks, powers, abilities, to the addition or removal of specific fiends (succubi, for example), it does influence anyone wishing to continue playing with older cosmologies. It may not be that bad, because anything can be fitted, re-written, re-imagined, etc, but it does add a lot of work for the DM, it is another big change for which existing campaigns will need serious adaptation.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting, this is very good fluff IMO.

It's also pretty adaptable. For example the nature of devils and demons can be very easily applied to the great wheel without using the new Astral Sea and Elemental Tempest, just "move" their planes wherever you want them to be.

It's not really a new thing about fiends by the way, this article is just streamlining and stressing the differences, instead of "mirroring" each other (something that I certainly don't like in 3e). For example, it sounds good to me that demons are giving up on souls.

Note that Hell is now fully a deity's realm, so mortals who worshipped (or perhaps unvoluntary served...) Asmodeus are going to Hell. There is no mention (yet) about a similar possibility to go to the Abyss... it's possible that Tharizdun would become the patron deity there, or one of them. But I wouldn't mind if it doesn's, and Abyss ceases to be a destination for the mortal souls (it already isn't in my latest setting ).

 

[Rechan]

True, however, when this new cosmology causes vast changes to existing mechanics, from the very nature of demons vs. devils, looks, powers, abilities, to the addition or removal of specific fiends (succubi, for example), it does influence anyone wishing to continue playing with older cosmologies. It may not be that bad, because anything can be fitted, re-written, re-imagined, etc, but it does add a lot of work for the DM, it is another big change for which existing campaigns will need serious adaptation.

All the more reason for people like Necromancer Games or Green Ronin to write it and sell to people who prefer that method.