D&D 4E 4e Prediction - Devils and Yuggoloths get axed

Although I imagine that they'll be rebranded as "Demons." Reasoning:

- Asmodeus wil be a God whereas Orcus is going to be a Monster.

- I believe there was a reference that alignment was going to be less a part of the game world or somesuch.

- WOTC seems to have a program to rebuild their monsters 4e with a ruthless attitude regarding sacred cows.

- Easier play. It's going to be easier for "joe/jane average" to play and enjoy D&D if they don't have to learn about the 3+ different kinds of "evil outsiders". Everyone knows what a demon is, but it gets confusing when there's Aggathoggs and G'hularis, etc, et al.

Heck, in OD&D just Demons were good enough.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm fine with "demon" being a generic term that common people use for evil outsiders.

I think we'll still have Lawful baatezu, Neutral Yugoloths, and Chaotic Tanar'ri, but it won't be as mechanically important as it is now, and -certainly- not a common-knowledge sort of thing.
 

How about the Yu-Gi-Oh-loth? Deep planar history and collectible card game all in one!

Also, it's got an "anime" vibe, which kids love these days. ;)

Cheers, -- N
 



I have my doubts. The Great Wheel and all it implies are important to the Dungeons & Dragons IP, which is why they're not in the current SRD and were used in various products despite the lack of attention paid to Greyhawk.

I can also hardly believe that they'll ignore all of the fabulous work done in the two Fiendish Codices.
 

But how would throwing out the Blood War and the antagonism between the Nine Hells and the Abyss be true to their statements that "its the same game, we're just getting rid of what doesn't work." Does a natural division in fiends really cause a game rule problem?

Plus, eliminating the Demon/Devil/Daemon (yugoloth) differences doesn't just affect the non existent "core" setting that doesn't exist, it effects the Forgotten Realms as well.

Finally, Asmodeus already had a "heads up" on being a god with some of the back story that was introduced back in 2nd edition. I think this is more of a revelation or confirmation of an "open secret" in D&D, not to mention it likely gives them a good iconic LE god to use in the Player's Handbook.
 

"Yugoloth" is still a terrible name. I hated it when they introduced it in the "Outer Planes" Monstrous Compendium appendix, and I still hate it. Wish they'd just ditched the "Baatezu" and "Tanar'ri" crap when they went back to calling them Devils and Demons in 3rd Edition. The sound like names out of Star Trek or something.

I want to spearhead the campaign for getting rid of apostrophes in sci-fi and fantasy names. It's beyond lame now.

I don't think it would be an entirely bad thing to simply refer to the Evil outsiders as "Demons." Especially if alignment is taking a back seat, as it was mainly alignment that defined the differences between devils, daemons, and demons. They're very much rooted in the "Great Wheel" cosmology, and if you don't use that, then the distinctions make a lot less sense.

If you look at Eberron's cosmology, the origins of evil outsiders isn't determined by whether they are lawful (devil) or chaotic (demon), but by how they fit the themes of the various planes. The "demon" and "devil" terms simply become metagame labels in an Eberron game.

But please ditch the crappy "Yugoloth" name at any rate.
 

I see no reason to start calling all the different types of fiends "demons" when there's a perfectly good word for them - "fiends".

I don't believe, at this stage, that Wizards of the Coast will make serious changes to the canon cosmology.
 


Remove ads

Top