Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lukelightning" data-source="post: 3793794" data-attributes="member: 9745">I like this change, though in my own homebrew cosmology there is no difference between a demon and a devil, they are all &quot;fiends&quot; and originate in the same place...though I also do away with alignment other than a way to describe behavior.But in core D&amp;D, making demons array in &quot;ravaging hordes&quot; instead of &quot;regimented troops&quot; doesn't do enough to show their chaotic nature.&nbsp; Demons are supposed to be exemplars of chaos, it's built into their very being, yet 3.5 treats them as regular, organized, social creatures with a slightly sloppy attitude.&nbsp; And as others have pointed out, there are many demons that are described as what can only be described as Lawful.&nbsp; If you are going to maintain a strong alignment system and a firm distinction between demons and devils, then this revision is the way to go.And I always thought the good old &quot;Type I, II, IV&quot; demon system was far more suited for devils than for demons.&nbsp; It seems far more Lawful to have established types and ranks.I think balors should &quot;kill pit fiends and take their stuff&quot; they are basically the same thing, and seem more demonic than diabolical. Mariliths? Obviously devils. Lots of demon lovers will not like this, but making them devils will give them the armies that they deserve as &quot;master tacticians and generals.&quot;&nbsp; Succubus? That's iffy... as tempters they are devilish, but they don't seem to be out for some master plan, they are out to suck life and spread destruction in a very personal, one-on-one manner, so I'd leave them as demons.&nbsp; Get rid of quasits, imps are the way to go for fiendish familiars. But perhaps they should be made neutral evil.... making them devils would mean that having one ties you into the devil schemes, but making them demons means you'd have an unwilling pet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lukelightning, post: 3793794, member: 9745"] I like this change, though in my own homebrew cosmology there is no difference between a demon and a devil, they are all "fiends" and originate in the same place...though I also do away with alignment other than a way to describe behavior. But in core D&D, making demons array in "ravaging hordes" instead of "regimented troops" doesn't do enough to show their chaotic nature. Demons are supposed to be exemplars of chaos, it's built into their very being, yet 3.5 treats them as regular, organized, social creatures with a slightly sloppy attitude. And as others have pointed out, there are many demons that are described as what can only be described as Lawful. If you are going to maintain a strong alignment system and a firm distinction between demons and devils, then this revision is the way to go. And I always thought the good old "Type I, II, IV" demon system was far more suited for devils than for demons. It seems far more Lawful to have established types and ranks. I think balors should "kill pit fiends and take their stuff" they are basically the same thing, and seem more demonic than diabolical. Mariliths? Obviously devils. Lots of demon lovers will not like this, but making them devils will give them the armies that they deserve as "master tacticians and generals." Succubus? That's iffy... as tempters they are devilish, but they don't seem to be out for some master plan, they are out to suck life and spread destruction in a very personal, one-on-one manner, so I'd leave them as demons. Get rid of quasits, imps are the way to go for fiendish familiars. But perhaps they should be made neutral evil.... making them devils would mean that having one ties you into the devil schemes, but making them demons means you'd have an unwilling pet. [/QUOTE]

Verification