Pathfinder 1E Are demons and devils too similar?

[Scrivener of Doom]

Yes, they are too similar.

I think this is one of those areas where 4E's slaughter of a few sacred cows worked out really well and perhaps Pathfinder should have followed suit.

And while Planescape did delve into the philosophical differences between these two types of fiends (as well as all the others), it never dealt with those philosophical issues at a mechanical level so the Gygaxian illogic and weirdness remained.

On a related note, other than an artificial attempt at symmetry, has anyone ever divined why tanar'ri were/are immune to electricity?

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, I'd be in favour of mashing demons and devils together. Maybe stick them all in the Lawful Evil "Evil Incorporated" niche, then make, say, Primordials the Neutral Evil posterboys, and Eldritch Wibblies the ultimate examples of Chaotic Evil.

 

[Starfox]

I liked what 4E did to demons and devils - turning them into rampaging elemental spirits and devils into fallen angels.

Deamons and all such stuff has always been there - notice the different "generations" of demons in 3E (Tanarii vs an elder brand whose name I can't recall now). Its spice if you dive deep into the outsider thing, but for most adventures is is just the same.

 

[Shemeska]

They're 'too similar' in the same way that scrambled eggs, pancakes, and orange juice are too similar as parts of a balanced breakfast.

Unless the idea of different begins and ends with statblocks and completely overlooks the flavor text, I'm truly just not seeing it.

4e made a lot of noise about demons and devils being too similar, and put in place their own attempts to fix a problem its designers saw. Of course the 'loths were promptly then kludged in as demons that weren't really demons and didn't act like them in any way. I didn't see the problem as existing in the first place, and the fix was both wildly inconsistent, and was a radical break with prior D&D lore.

The only thing that needed better definition versus the other two major fiend races were the yugoloths, but really only the 1e and 3e versions. The 2e versions were brilliantly expanded upon into their own conceptual niche, but 3e largely didn't pick back up on that and just made them a race of greedy mercenaries which was only half the picture from before, and then 4e seemed genuinely scattered all over the place without a clear idea of how to even handle them with some authors doing their best to ignore them, make them demons but not demons, or try to preserve some of the prior lore within the constraints imposed by the 4e cosmology. I really adore the 2e material.

Pathfinder hasn't changed demons or devils. They've retained their classic nature and appearance and they didn't inexplicably remove the alignment that the latter epitomized. They did however do their best to give the NE fiends a unique conceptual niche so that like in 1e, 3e, and 4e people wouldn't be left wondering why they were a distinct race and not just there to balance out symmetry. Pathfinder couldn't use any of the 2e material of course. So while demons epitomize destruction and devils tyranny, the NE daemons epitomize mortal death/oblivion.

 

[Jester David]

I have no idea what 4e did to make them different

4e initially tried to emphasise devils being more humanoid and rational in their reasoning while demons were less human and more irrational and destructive.
While the appearance thing didn't last forever the general attitude did: devils keep their promises and are evil lawyers while demons destroy. It's corrupt versus defile.

That said, there are a lot of demons and devils in Pathfinder that vary from type. There are a number of examples of demons that will keep their word or can be reasoned with. I've seen social encounters with demons in a few modules. They could have been a little harder distinguishing them in the base rules and emphasizing their differences.

 

[CSwizzy]

I always thought it went like this...

Devils = LE and come from the 9 Hells
Demons = CE and come from the Abyss

 

[Remathilis]

Just what you clueless primes would want, all fiends to be the same.

Let me tell you, fighting fiends are a dangerous job. First, you gotta know what your fighting, and that ain't easy. When its wreathed in flame and coming at you, are you going to take the time to determine if that's a balor or a pit fiend? Probably not, and that's what they're counting on. Sure, a few of them love the dispair caused their obvious forms (maraliths and vrocks in particular enjoy the notoriety) but if you could get an eyrines to be honest with you, she'd secretly tell you she relishes the fact most clueless primes think she's a succubus and pull out the cold-iron instead of the silver. Its saved the life of more than one of hell's furies and doomed more than a couple "demon hunters" to the next life.

So I don't see them ever wanting to change. Yeah, looking alike annoys one another to no end. But the devil's like tricking mortals too much and the demons enjoy the chaos that comes from misguessing their immunities to ever stop. So if you're facing fiends berk, be ready. Unless you know where they are coming from with 100% certainty, prep an extra weapon or a few non-alignment spells, just in case...

 

[Morlock]

This article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20070924) is old news, but I think it raises an interesting point. Demons and devils have more similarities than they do differences. Then you have "daemons," which is a funny misspelling of "demon." What's next? Daevils, daimons, daimones, deamons, deemons, deevels, deevils, deveels? (All these funny words are actually used in literature and poetry dating back up to two hundred years.)

Could demons and devils in Pathfinder benefit from more differentiation, a la 4th edition?

Apropos of I dunno, but sometimes it's the similarity that makes for the greatest enmity. Just look at Soviets and National Socialists - very similar, but the worst of enemies, perhaps precisely because of the similarities. They were competing for the same audience.

Oh, and IIRC, "daemon" is the more "authentic" spelling. Again IIRC, it's a Greek word and refers not to what we think of as demons, but to "outsider" servants and spirits in general (demons & angels). Check that for accuracy before you repeat it, though, been a long time since I read any mythology.

 

[VelvetViolet]

I'll agree that 4e's attempt to differentiate them eventually fell by the wayside after the first monster manual, but I thought it was a good idea. In the Pathfinder rules, though, demons are just a variation on devils. As the article explains it, this is what I consider the best difference:

"Asmodeus rules Hell with despotic pride, and all devils conform to his strict hierarchy or face destruction. Within the chain of command, lesser devils use whatever power they have to mimic their ultimate leader. Devils work to gain influence in the cosmos, especially among mortals in the world. They eagerly respond to any summons and readily form cleverly worded pacts. They plan and build to meet their needs, making and using all sorts of devices, tools, and weapons. A devil might be supernaturally potent, and it might possess incredible magic items, but its greatest assets are its shrewdly calculating mind and eternal patience. Devils want to impose a sort of order -- specifically theirs -- on the cosmos."

"Most demons are savage and fearless engines of annihilation. Although sometimes driven by unspeakable yearning or by horrifying demon lords to gather in groups, demons have no real organization and no singular aim. Demons don’t negotiate, and they build nothing lasting. Most use tooth and claw rather than artificial weapons. They care little or nothing for souls. Even the mightiest demon lords manipulate other demons by using threats, direct violence, or the promise of more destruction through affiliation. Although the lords of the Abyss that veteran D&D players know and love to hate still exist, no monolithic hierarchy supports any demon’s influence. Although a demon might want to destroy another creature and take that creature’s power, success only results in the winning demon using and squandering what it has seized. Demons have no regard for the responsibilities of authority, and they care little for keeping what they acquire. They’re forces of unmaking, and a universe under them would reflect the horror that is the Abyss, if that universe survived at all."

Demons are personifications of chaotic evil (read: an entire race of The Joker). In particular, babau, coloxus, glabrezu, incubus, kalavakus, marilith, nalfeshnee, quasit, succubus, and vrolikai are the most lawful demons. They can pull off complex schemes that require patience and restraint. As it stands, we have five lawful evil fiend races (asura, devil, kyton, oni, rakshasa), three chaotic evil fiend races (demodands, demons, qlippoth) and two neutral evil fiend races (daemons, divs). These are their MOs:

• Asura: destroy the work of the gods
• Devil: conquer the world
• Kyton: torture victims and themselves
• Oni: dominate and consume material pleasures
• Rakshasa: same as Oni
• Demodand: same as Asura
• Demon: generally wreak havoc
• Qlippoth: extinction of all life
• Daemons: same as Qlippoth
• Divs: orchestrate suffering

Most of those MOs work out to the same result in practice: murderizing everything. I think that's a good enough justification for making a race of neutral evil fiends that personify vice as opposed to saying only demons are viceful (in addition to oni and rakshasa).

 

[Stormonu]

Its like highlighting the difference between a Nerd, Dork and a Geek. if you put them under one umbrella namewise, it's only those three who'll fight bitterly over their differences.