Changes to Devils and Demons

[Nikosandros]

While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.

Yes... the Pit Fiend can be the an evil master mind, incredibly cunning and manipulative, with impressive charisma, while the Balor can be a primeval engine of flaming distruction...

 

[Tewligan]

Well, that's all folks. I'm out. Goodbye, good night, that's it. I'm done with even the idea of 4e. This is just a STUPID change to make that completely invalidates all the old material on the planes. To hell with it, and to hell with WotC. I'll stick with 3.5 for... well, as long as it takes for them to realize all these changes are a bad idea. (See you in 2010 or so.)

Absolutely! I can't BELIEVE that they've merged two monsters into one, and made some changes to the history of demons and devils. Why, there's NO WAY I can ever use the older background in my games! Because of this monumental change, an entire new system is dead to me - dead, I say! Kvantum, you are quite right to upend a big bucket of melodrama in this thread - good for you, my angry friend!

God, I wish there was an eyeroll smiley.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I agree with Rich Baker's decision to have devils be humanoid in appearance and demons be 'outwardly monstrous.' Although, perhaps pit fiends could be the result of Balors transformed by the powers of Hell to serve them.

Hmm...

I think pit fiends are too iconic as devils for them to be "demon transplants." What I'd rather see is one of the following:

A) Pit fiends are an exception to the "devils tend to appear human" rule, being such ancient examples of diabolical evil--but lacking the power of the Dukes, to maintain their appearance--that they've taken on a more monstrous form.

Or, my preferred option...

B) Pit fiends have two forms: A very human one, with only a few diabolic traits, and the standard pit fiend form, which erupts when they grow angry or violent.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

This is very cool. A bit overly Judaeo-Christian, but still very cool. As someone who never really cared for the Great Wheel, the reification of alignment or Planescape, the further they get from that setup, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Hong and I are in agreement yet again; from this representative sample I conclude those of us in the statistical sciences have the same gaming preferences at the 0.01 significance level.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.

Why do you need two balrogs? Save one for MM2, and use that space in MM1 for a dramatically different monster.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Hmm...

I think pit fiends are too iconic as devils for them to be "demon transplants." What I'd rather see is one of the following:

A) Pit fiends are an exception to the "devils tend to appear human" rule, being such ancient examples of diabolical evil--but lacking the power of the Dukes, to maintain their appearance--that they've taken on a more monstrous form.

Or, my preferred option...

B) Pit fiends have two forms: A very human one, with only a few diabolic traits, and the standard pit fiend form, which erupts when they grow angry or violent.

Your second option reminds me of that pit fiend from Night Below who appeared as a handsome human unless roused to anger.

 

[MerricB]

While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.

To differentiate them, you really have to do it at the story level (through an adventure), and the difference between the persecution of the Erinyes and the seduction of the Succubus are not easy things to present to the players... especially if they're used to killing monsters first.

Cheers!

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Why do you need two balrogs? Save one for MM2, and use that space in MM1 for a dramatically different monster.

Incidentally, of the two names, I prefer pit fiend. Leave balrogs/balors in Tolkien's works where they belong.

 

[Klaus]

For more on the Erynies (Alecto, Megaera and Tisiphone): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furies

As Mouseferatu, I'd prefer to see succubi and erynies remaining two different creatures, with the erynies being altered to resemble their status as female personification of vengeance. Keeping the erynies also opens the door for eumenides, the positive aspect of the erynies, as celestials.

 

[JoelF]

Count my vote for another one who's not happy with combining succibi and eryines. I'm indifferent on the other changes (thought probably would have prefered not messing with the devil fluff). My biggest concern isn't the combination in a vacuum, but instead about how many other changes are made which I think suck. This is the first fact about 4E which I 100% don't like, but based on it, I can infer that there will be many changes to monsters which simply don't make sense to long time players.

Will we have gorgons and medusas combined into one monster to avoid confusion that in greek mythology Medusa was one of the gogrons?

Will skeletons be missing entirely from 4E because the Chinese censors banned them from WoW, and WOTC wants 4E to be easily portable to the global market? (I'm not kidding about the Chinese censors either)

How about combining griffons and hippogriffs also, since lots of players get them confused, and they're both basically winged mounts. (Hey, let's just call them pegasi and knock out 3 at once!)