Changes to Devils and Demons

[Lord Zack]

The implied setting has changed with every new edition since the beginning of the game.

In Basic, not all chromatic dragons were evil, and the only metallic was gold.

In 1E, there was no such thing as Baatezu or Tanar'ri.

The default setting of 2E was Forgotten Realms. It was Greyhawk in 1E and 3E. It was "The Known World" (which sort of became Mystara) in Basic.

Vecna was a dead lich in 1E, a demigod in 2E, and a god in 3E.

Numerous archfiends vanished or appeared between editions.

Only humans could be paladins until 3E.

Orcs changed from lawful evil to chaotic evil in 3E.

Kobolds didn't used to be reptiles related to dragons.

Half-orcs, monks, and assassins ceased to exist in the default setting from 1E to 2E, and returned from 2E to 3E.

Psionics completely changed, not only in mechanics, but in flavor.

If you don't care for the implied setting changes we've heard about in 4E, that's your prerogative. But to claim that this is the first time such things have happened is simply inaccurate.

From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works to be the same as changing kobolds from dogs to reptiles or changing a few details a about a character. It's a matter of scale. You can make the fruits in Trix spheres. But if you make them chocolate flavored, then you've got a completely different cereal.

 

[hong]

From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works

D00d, I've been doing it for years. Trust me, after the first one, it gets much easier.

 

[Remathilis]

Thank you. I was just heading to pore through my books to see if I was imagining things. I couldn't figure out why so many people were insisting that erinyes and succubi filled such different roles, when I remembered erinyes as being basically devilish succubi. And now I know why - the last time I used erinyes in any of my campaigns was when I was running a Planescape campaign back in the day - I haven't really looked at them since the 3.5 upgrade because I haven't needed them. I thought I was losing my mind or something...

Your welcome (luckily, PDF books saved me a lot of typing.)

I recall for the LONGEST time thinking Erinyes were redundant since they were "hot women with feathered wings who tempt you to damnation" vs. "hot women with bat wings who tempt you to damnation." I was a big fan of the 3.5 mythology (the descendants of a fallen angel) since it gave them something DIFFERENT to do. However, if they are looking to trim some fat, Erinyes/Succubi as one creature CERTAINLY fits the bill. I Hope Imp/Quasit gets the same treatment, I'm ambivalent about pit fiend/balor though.

Also, one of my players (when he was just starting) called every erinyes in Planescape a succubus, often (out of game) forgetting the difference (no this one has feather wings, its a completely different monster). He did catch on, btw...

I was also a bigger fan of the succubi since in almost every edition, the art on the succubi was better, but that's just being petty.

 

[Mouseferatu]

From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works to be the same as changing kobolds from dogs to reptiles or changing a few details a about a character.

And I don't consider changing the origin story of devils, or swapping a few creatures between demon and devil status, to be "completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works."

It's a change. It's not nearly as big of a chance as people are making it out to be. It might imply larger changes. It might not.

(And actually, even the cosmology changed between editions. Various planes have been added, removed, and moved.)

I'm sure there'll be some cosmology changes in 4E; that's part and parcel of changing alignment, which they've already said they're doing. But what those changes are, and how far-reaching they are, is still unknown.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.

Nope, I recently watched an interview with Bill Roper (one of the makers of Hellgate: London) who said the exact same thing. They had to modify their game because the Chinese goverment forbids exposed bone.

 

[The Shadow]

What if they change goblins to be mischeavous fey,

I'd at least look at it with interest, though I wouldn't necessarily use it.

or make gorgons be the name of the race now called medusas

I'm all for it, actually. The current way feels so darn illiterate.

or have dragons all be one fire breathing race?

While I wouldn't want to see just one race of dragons, I could definitely stand to get away from the color-coded strait-jacket we've been in so many years. I usually ditch the metallics (except sometimes the gold, for the Orient), and make the chromatics more interesting and give them more varied personalities.

ie, you don't have "red dragons", you have "mountain dragons", with a variety of scale colors and attitudes.

That's not D&D. That's a new game.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. The game is the crunch. The fluff is ... the fluff. There might be some limits to just how far you can stretch certain kinds of fluff over certain kinds of crunch, but I don't think we've reached them yet. Not even close.

EDIT: Actually, I take it back. We have. We've tried many times to adapt classic fantasy fluff to absurdly idiosyncratic D&D crunch. Arthurian romance with Vancian magic, forsooth!

I hope that 4e will be more adapatable to classic fantasy, rather than trying to force it the other way around.

 

[Jer]

I have to refute these assumptions because:

a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons ...

b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, ...

I don't think I've ever heard a player complain about the distinction. Most of the players I've had in the past have either been hardcore gamers who have been reading Monster Manuals since Junior High or are such casual gamers that they might not even realize that the fact that I'm using two different works for "demon" might mean that they're seeing two different types of creatures. (And probably wouldn't care if they were told there was a difference).

I've heard of a few folks who have thought about becoming DMs complain about stuff like this, though. In fact, I know one White Wolf player who decided that all the little idiosyncrasies about D&D monsters grated on him just enough to not bother ever DMing (though he's perfectly willing to play D&D, or to run World of Darkness or Exalted stuff - he won't run D&D).

But anecdotes aren't data, so I'm not going to try to argue that these folks are any kind of large base being alienated by current D&D tropes. I think a better question is what does keeping the mostly arbitrary distinctions that have grown up around demons and devils add to the game? What harm does the addition of this kind of fluff do to the game?

(To admit my own biases, I came into the game via Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters D&D. My view of the game was heavily colored by the idea that I should be building my own world including my own planar geography. The whole idea introduced in 2e that all of the D&D settings were linked together in some kind of grand cosmology - whether through Planescape or through Spelljammer - was foreign to me, and really kind of an unwelcome assumption that I often had to dissuade players of during the mid-90s when they sat at my table. That's probably at least part of the reason why I don't see why any of this stuff should make much difference - it's just fluff and I've been modifying fluff in every D&D product I've bought since I started in this hobby. And, in the long run, fluff is a heck of a lot easier and more fun to modify than mechanics are in my book.)

 

[Pale]

How many RW religions have a dead or murdered deity? Is it the angels rebelling thing? So did the greek gods against the titans. Lots of mythic parallels to draw on.
I like the changes of combining the succubus and the eryines and giving a greater difference between demons and devils. I don't like the ad hoc Ice Devils are really demons but we fudged it, so they're devils.

If you look closely, all mythic parallels are real world religions.

 

[Lord Zack]

I'd at least look at it with interest, though I wouldn't necessarily use it.



I'm all for it, actually. The current way feels so darn illiterate.



While I wouldn't want to see just one race of dragons, I could definitely stand to get away from the color-coded strait-jacket we've been in so many years. I usually ditch the metallics (except sometimes the gold, for the Orient), and make the chromatics more interesting and give them more varied personalities.

ie, you don't have "red dragons", you have "mountain dragons", with a variety of scale colors and attitudes.



Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. The game is the crunch. The fluff is ... the fluff. There might be some limits to just how far you can stretch certain kinds of fluff over certain kinds of crunch, but I don't think we've reached them yet. Not even close.

EDIT: Actually, I take it back. We have. We've tried many times to adapt classic fantasy fluff to absurdly idiosyncratic D&D crunch. Arthurian romance with Vancian magic, forsooth!

I hope that 4e will be more adapatable to classic fantasy, rather than trying to force it the other way around.

Then obviously 1e, 2e and 3e are completely seperate games.

 

[zoroaster100]

My gut reaction to these changes is negative, mainly because it makes me concerned that the changes to monsters will be such that my miniatures, art and fluff books will lose utility. But if this is what it takes to get rid of mechanical effects for alignment and for more logical and useful good outsiders, then I might learn to accept it.