Changes to Devils and Demons

[Aloïsius]

Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work. First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.

I doubt "type" will exist in 4e. Remember what they said about monster design : it will all be about what the monster is supposed to do, not about what it is supposed to be.

 

[Aeolius]

Are they TRYING to make 4e as unappealing to long-time gamers as possible? Granted, in my games the succubus and Erinyes are both daughters of night hags, by demon and devil fathers respectively.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20. :\

Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I am a HUGE fan of this change.

I think this partly is the outcome of rethinking the alignment system. If there aren't planar niches reserved in the celestial realms for each alignment, or blending thereof (because alignment might work differently that the planes as we know them are arranged), the designers have more freedom to make alterations. Not only that, it may be necessary to clean things up to make some sort of NEW sense according to the new alignment model.

Just some musings. I love this.

 

[Terraism]

Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.

Okay, but note this - the new stuff is, as you've said, geared to folk who don't have the background to pull that off. Meaning that they're likely not familiar with the Planescape/Great Wheel mythos and don't care about it. So it's only a real blow to them if the mythos is demonstrably, factually, better than the new, easy-to-pick-up-devils-as-fallen-angels fluff. And it's obviously not, given the number of folk in this thread alone who like it.

For what it's worth, I'm a huge Planescape fan - in a Planescape game. For more earthbound D&D games, I hate the idea of the Great Wheel - it's only appropriate, I think, in a specific context. So I'm happy that the default - primebound games - is getting a simpler, more accessible system.

 

[Av3rnus]

Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work. First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon. You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up. If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed. If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed. Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.

Do we know if devils and demons will actually be distinct creature types? Given what's been said about alignments in 4e, I'm doubting that there will be much - if any - difference between lawful evil outsiders and chaotic evil outsiders in terms of stats or game mechanics. I'm guessing the distinction will pretty much be all fluff and no crunch (which would work just fine for me).

 

[timbannock]

I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions. Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows". This not not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, but it is something that needs to be taken into account for ongoing campaigns being converted to 4e.

In a theoretical Planescape 4e supplement, I would expect Baator to be a different place than the Nine Hells being talked about here. The succubus/eriynes merger is also trivially fixed (if you need to) by saying that in the Planescape setting the succubus from the Monster Manual is called an "eriynes" in the setting and that there's this other demon monster called a succubus that it somewhat different over in the Abyss. Personally, I'd probably prefer they just kind of sweep it under the rug and ignore it, but then I'm someone who doesn't care about playing "fast and loose" with gameworld "continuity" and other's mileage will vary.

Much like I wouldn't expect published settings to correspond to the "points of light in darkness" motif of the "implied setting" of the core rules, I don't expect published settings to slavishly follow the "fluff" that is derived from that implied setting in the Monster Manual. What's the point of publishing different settings if they all have the same feel and the same fluff?

True.

Getting rid of the sacred cows in the rules is one thing. A new edition is invariably going to cause some "issues" in conversion. Converting rules is easy to some, annoying to others, but not impossible.

But changing the fluff drastically? That's potentially bigger than changing the rules. Now, when a pre-4E "grognard" runs a campaign with new players, it's not just a couple rules tweaks in their "house rules" document. It's no pages and pages of "my planar cosmology is this way, my devils are this way, my demons are another way" etc.

I like taking things in new directions, but this definitely seems like material you should change in a campaign setting supplement, not in the core rulebooks.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?

Yeah, I'm really not getting the level of anger over this from some people. Objecting to the change, yes, but to find it so utterly alienating?

And it's not like this is the first time the origins of devils have changed in the game. The Planescape origin, from 2E, was new. 1E didn't really have a default, but the implied origins from the old Dragon articles certainly didn't match up with the Planescape material.

As for alignment, the word from the GenCon seminar was that it would exist, but not as we know it, and would no real mechanical impact on the game.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20. :\

There's been other cosmology fluff out there. I, for instance, like the BECMI planes model. In fact, this new direction along with the "points of light" setting assumptions, feels like WotC is taking some strong pointers from the BECMI days. I'm not saying Mystara the setting, but rather the BECMI rules boxes themselves.

 

[Nikosandros]

Overall I'm intrigued by those ideas. Sure, they contradict previous material, but this just means that for any given game, I have more background choices... after all, I usually kept the para and quasi elemental planes in my 3e games.

I'm only puzzled about the deal with Erinyes. As others have already pointed out they are spirits of vengeance. In the Oresteia by Aeschylus, Orestes is tormented by the Erinyes for the murder of his mother Clytemnestra.