Changes to Devils and Demons

[delericho]

Incidentally, I wonder what the reaction would be if WotC said, "there's an awful lot of redundancy in the low-level humanoid space. We have Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls and Lizardfolk all fighting for the same space. It's too many, so we've streamlined down to just three: Goblins, Orcs and Ogres."

I suspect it would be considerably less favourable than that which has been seen here, despite the fact that there is a lot of redundancy there. Kobolds, in particular, are a problem - their stats are such that they are only really suitable as foes for 1st or maybe 2nd level PCs, yet they are described as living in warrens of narrow, twisting and trap-filled tunnels. If you design such a lair as described, and run it realistically, not only do you have an adventure that isn't much fun (due to constantly squeezing, and problems in most of the party getting in on the action), but you've also got something that is almost a guaranteed TPK. ("Good going, guys; you just got your asses handed to you by kobolds again!"). Never mind "Tomb of Horrors" - Gygax should have taunted those "expert players" with his classic "Against the Kobolds" module!

 

[Merlion]

And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.

It's all about motivation, IMO.

Having Good and Evil and no Law and Chaos doesnt mean every game is going to be a "black and white good versus evil campaign."

At least, not anymore so than it will be anyway, since even with "Law" and "Chaos" it all still boils down to Good and Evil, or at least to Right and Wrong, and the space in between.

And thats the trouble with all aspects of D&D alignment. Nothing is given to the space in between, to ambiguity or indecision. Even "Neutrality" is an extreme in itself.

I dont think its about motivation. Its about intention. D&D alignment only takes actions into account. Your only "Good" in D&D if your a crusader, same with Evil. Most of the "neutrals" in D&D are in reality Good...people who have respect and decency toward other people, but dont necessarily spend most of their time evanglizing or fighting evil.

And because of how the detect spells work, theres no room for ambiguity. Everyone detects as good, evil or neutral. I think there should be room for conflicted characters, who are teetering between good and evil. I dont mean neutrality, sitting on the fence, I mean being poised between the two.

And, you do realize its possible to have enemies that are morally Good right? People can do bad, ill advised, harmful things for good reasons and good intentions.

I dislike the "Law" "Chaos" bit of alignment in D&D...and really, how it deals with alignment in general. But I equally dislike, for instance, Monte Cook's decision to remove all alignment and concepts of Good and Evil from Arcana Evolved/Unearthed (especially since, as is often the case, it was simply replaced with other things that were clearly substitutes for Good and Evil.)

Yup. Alignment has always been problematic once you start drawing complex personality. The proof ? Start a thread (on another board...NOT one ENWORLD) about what is the alignment of a government, a corporation, or an historic or mythical figure. For fun just try to define what was Hitler or Gengis Khan alignment : most people will agree on the Evil vs Good axis, but the Law vs Chaos axis will be much more problematic...

Yep. Because "Law" and "Chaos" arent really alignment concepts. At best, D&D Law and Chaos are basically personality traits, or political views, better left to roleplaying.

 

[hong]

Agreed. But if one group of people prefer one solution over the other, and a second group don't care, then the solution to go with is the one preferred by the first group, even if they are by far a minority.

Or the designers can do what they consider to be best for the game. That's their job, after all. You wouldn't want a game that was designed by committee, would you?

It is true, however, that there is a third group here - those who prefer the new arrangement. Whether they are numerous enough, and whether they care enough, to justify casting aside the existing canon is an open question.

There are clearly enough people who like the new system and who care enough to turn this into a 12-page thread.

That the difference between monsters is in the arrangement of those powers, and in how they are used. If you want Demon encounters to feel different from Devil encounters, you need more than "humanoid and used weapons" vs. not.

And it was claimed that the only difference between demons and devils would be in the appearance... where?

It's also not enough to simply vary the energy resistances.

It was claimed that it would be enough to vary the energy resistances... where?

A far better idea is to set up your Devils as having abilities to work closely together (Improved Flank, or whatever), while giving Demons abilities that better fit the 'undisciplined horde' motif.

Alternatively, as I discussed in an earlier post in this thread, assign the Devil the role of mastermind, and the Demon that of brute. Advise DMs that the best use for a Devil is as a more powerful lone creature, while the Demon fits better in a horde of weaker creatures.

And so, the balanced encounter for a 20th level party might be a lone CR22 Devil, or a CR18 Demon and half a dozen of his CR14 minions.

And having mechanical and thematic differences that reinforce and encourage different tactics between the two groups is a bad thing... why?

No, but when the DM says, "You see this", and plunks down the miniature of the Glabrezu, most players will be able to narrow it to Evil Outsider pretty quickly. Once you're there, getting to Demon or Devil will now be a matter of looking at the shape.

Tch. You were saying that there was no point to different appearances if there could be other ways to distinguish demons and devils. The point is that there are other monsters in the world besides just demons and devils, so having them look different does not necessarily make life easier for metagaming players. Of course, if we really cared that much about metagaming players, we would have every monster in the world be described as an amorphous blob, wouldn't we?

Alternatively, those DMs should be describing the activities of the Demon in a manner consistent with their alignment (or other stated behaviour,

Tch. First you say that players who spend points on skill ranks so as to distinguish otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be rewarded. Now you say that otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be described in a way that makes them easily distinguished without needing said skill ranks. Make up your mind.

if we're insistent on de-emphasising alignment even for creatures for which it makes sense not to do so),

If alignment is going to be deemphasised as an in-game mechanic, then that applies to everything within the game world. None of this makes demons and devils somehow less significant or meaningful as opponents or elements of the game world. The challenge instead is to find other ways to make the distinction, besides the crutch of alignment. This should not be hard, given that other fantasy games manage to have demons and devils of various types, without needing alignment as well.

and as being distinctly different from the activites of Devils. Players should be paying attention to the previous encounters that they have had with creatures of these types, and therefore be drawing the conclusion based on what they have previously experienced.

Exactly. Encounters with demons and devils should be different, and a part of that is the mechanical and thematic differences between the two groups.

Tell me again exactly how fighting a glabrezu is significantly different to fighting a cornugon IN A WAY THAT TELLS YOU ONE IS A DEMON AND THE OTHER IS A DEVIL, other than that you use lightning bolts against one but not the other.

Rather than saying, "oh, it's got weapons - break out the lightning bolts."

And people were saying "oh, it's got weapons -- break out the lightning bolts"... when, exactly?

 

[hong]

Incidentally, I wonder what the reaction would be if WotC said, "there's an awful lot of redundancy in the low-level humanoid space. We have Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls and Lizardfolk all fighting for the same space. It's too many, so we've streamlined down to just three: Goblins, Orcs and Ogres."

I streamline it down to two: orcs and ogres. It works great. You should try it some time.

 

[cerberus2112]

I am up for the change. I agree with a generic MM. What sounds really really weird to me, as a Wow player, is this "must be a role" enforcement: these use swords, these don't.

I can live without the Blood War.
I can live without The Great Wheel.
Hey, I modify demons /devils myself all the time...

I'm just afraid the new rules won't allow me to customize my campaign in therms of ROLEPLAY not just filling ROLES. Hope Wotc convice me I'm wrong but it feels like Blizzard toning down classes for instances and PVP... "LF1M DPS Tarrasque" ...

Keep in mind, these are "This Encounter's roles," not "This Monster's Role." A hobgoblin can be a berserker, an archer, a magical spellcaster, or a social challenge, all depending on what the Encounter calls for. At least, this is the impression I get when reading their examples. The Roles give you a set of stats by level to serve as a guideline, and you get the monster up to par for its role by what ever means you choose (adding levels, just giving it strait stats bonuses, whatever pleases you most).

 

[delericho]

Or the designers can do what they consider to be best for the game. That's their job, after all. You wouldn't want a game that was designed by committee, would you?

The designers absolutely have the right to make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. I absolutely have the right not to like them. Furthermore, subject to the forbearance of the moderators, I have the right to say as much.

Tch. First you say that players who spend points on skill ranks so as to distinguish otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be rewarded. Now you say that otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be described in a way that makes them easily distinguished without needing said skill ranks. Make up your mind.

The first time a new monster is met without context, it should not be possible to determine whether it is a Demon or a Devil, short of using Knowledge(the planes). However, an expert player should, upon repeated encounters, and with context, be able to make the distinction with a reasonable degree of accuracy. My definition of "expert player" does not equate to "is able to see weapons", however.

Tell me again exactly how fighting a glabrezu is significantly different to fighting a cornugon IN A WAY THAT TELLS YOU ONE IS A DEMON AND THE OTHER IS A DEVIL, other than that you use lightning bolts against one but not the other.

One is lawful and the other chaotic. As such, the DM should be using different tactics to show this point. Moreover, in the build-up to the combat, those differences should be emphasised - the Cornugon should be operating in a disciplined manner through various levels of underlings (probably with a militaristic bent, as befits its place in the heirarchy of the Hells), while the Glabrezu should be working in a manner better suited to breaking down social orders and heirarchies (focussing on subterfuge, for the same reason).

It is absolutely true that the current rules do a fairly poor job of distinguishing between the two, and that improvements can be made. However, the problems have nothing to do with the relative appearances of the two groups. Rather than force them into these two camps (and then have to re-assign the Succubus, presumably redesign the Balor to no longer be humanoid or use weapons, and eliminate the Hellcat, for three), and make meta-gaming easier, they should be changing the mechanics, and providing guidance on the usage of these monsters to emphasise the differences.

IMO, of course.

In any case, I think I've said all I have to say on this topic, so I'm going to step out of the thread rather than test that forbearance of the moderators. To recap: I don't like the change to the cosmology, because it seems like change for the sake of change. I don't like the shoe-horning of Devils to be humanoid and use weapons, and Demons to be non-humanoid and not use weapons, because I feel it makes metagaming easier, does nothing to actually differentiate the encounters, and requires changes to several creatures that otherwise wouldn't be necessary. The merging of the succubus and the erinyes I actually don't mind... except that the succubus still fits the CE alignment better, and so should be a Demon.

 

[hong]

The designers absolutely have the right to make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. I absolutely have the right not to like them. Furthermore, subject to the forbearance of the moderators, I have the right to say as much.

Naturally. And I have the right to point out flaws in your arguments.

The first time a new monster is met without context, it should not be possible to determine whether it is a Demon or a Devil, short of using Knowledge(the planes).

To be precise, the first time a devil is met without context, it should not be possible to determine that it is, in fact, a devil. And this is exactly what is allowed by making them humanoid in form. Whereas the first time a demon is met without context, it should not be possible to determine what kind of demon it is. And this is exactly what is allowed by making them variable in shape. Whether or not a devil can be confused with a demon is a matter of profound insignificance, because it's hardly the case that these are the only two groups of monsters in a D&D world.

However, an expert player should, upon repeated encounters, and with context, be able to make the distinction with a reasonable degree of accuracy. My definition of "expert player" does not equate to "is able to see weapons", however.

Why do you consider that anybody is thinking that "expert player" equates to "is able to see weapons"?

Just because devils and demons are distinct from each other doesn't mean they can't be confused with other things. Okay, maybe demons should be indisputably demons (just as dragons are indisputably dragons) but it seems eminently reasonable and in keeping with the source material that devils, as tempters, seducers and corrupters, should appear to be perfectly ordinary humans at first glance. So what if this means you can tell demons and devils apart? In the overall scheme of the D&D monster menagerie, that's a trivial issue.

One is lawful and the other chaotic. As such, the DM should be using different tactics to show this point.

Moreover, in the build-up to the combat, those differences should be emphasised - the Cornugon should be operating in a disciplined manner through various levels of underlings (probably with a militaristic bent, as befits its place in the heirarchy of the Hells), while the Glabrezu should be working in a manner better suited to breaking down social orders and heirarchies (focussing on subterfuge, for the same reason).

And wouldn't it be great if the actual stats, mechanics and in-game descriptions for these monsters encouraged such differentiation in theme, rather than seeming to be random accretions of natural and magical abilities? I certainly think so.

It is absolutely true that the current rules do a fairly poor job of distinguishing between the two, and that improvements can be made. However, the problems have nothing to do with the relative appearances of the two groups. Rather than force them into these two camps (and then have to re-assign the Succubus, presumably redesign the Balor to no longer be humanoid or use weapons, and eliminate the Hellcat, for three), and make meta-gaming easier, they should be changing the mechanics,

Changing the mechanics... you mean, like giving devils weapons but not demons? Or giving demons bigass natural attacks, but not devils?

In any case, I think I've said all I have to say on this topic, so I'm going to step out of the thread rather than test that forbearance of the moderators. To recap: I don't like the change to the cosmology, because it seems like change for the sake of change.

No, it's change for the sake of making the D&D monster menagerie more meaningful and useful as a source of varied encounters.

I don't like the shoe-horning of Devils to be humanoid and use weapons, and Demons to be non-humanoid and not use weapons, because I feel it makes metagaming easier,

It makes metagaming a trivial issue easier, while facilitating distinctions that help deepen the identity of both groups.

does nothing to actually differentiate the encounters,

Of course it does. For one thing, devils and demons will automatically do different things without the DM needing to remind himself to do this.

and requires changes to several creatures that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DarthDiablo]

So what you're saying is that the distinction between demon and devil is unimportant, and they should just have one set of bad guys, let's call them "fiends" or something. Which is also fine by me.

What I am saying is I like the new distinction between the two. The devils are fallen angels giving them a more humanoid appearence and the demons are a more primordial evil, thus more beastlike in appearence. To me it is better than the whole law vs. chaos ideology. Both are evil. Law & Chaos should be more a matter of flavor in the case of these creatures, not something that shoehorns them into their behavior. Devils will be probably be played as a corrupting force - "The Devil made me do it!" and demons will probably be more destructive forces. This will keep both in line with the LE/CE concepts, but since alignment is getting an overhaul, they may remove these descriptions (LE/CE). I like having different fiends, but unless you were a DM, it was hard to distinguish between them in the previous editions.

 

[hong]

What I am saying is I like the new distinction between the two. The devils are fallen angels giving them a more humanoid appearence and the demons are a more primordial evil, thus more beastlike in appearence. To me it is better than the whole law vs. chaos ideology. Both are evil. Law & Chaos should be more a matter of flavor in the case of these creatures, not something that shoehorns them into their behavior. Devils will be probably be played as a corrupting force - "The Devil made me do it!" and demons will probably be more destructive forces. This will keep both in line with the LE/CE concepts, but since alignment is getting an overhaul, they may remove these descriptions (LE/CE). I like having different fiends, but unless you were a DM, it was hard to distinguish between them in the previous editions.

Fair enough.

 

[DarthDiablo]

And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.

It's all about motivation, IMO.

I said 3 alignments. Good, NEUTRAL and Evil. I don't like black & white worlds, and that's the main rason I stopped playing Paladins (who were my fav class for a long time when I first started playing). To me the world is a grey place.

I suppose that's what has drawn me towards the Ebberon setting. Lots of intrigue and uncertainty about who you're really working for when someone approaches you with a quest. I didn't like it at first, but the more I read about it the more it grew on me. Much like FR did when I first read the Grey Box set and before it became the oversaturated beast it is today.

For me alignment is a tool. Unfortunately, many people use it the wrong way & force players to act in a certain way because the alignment rules say they should behave that way. I hope the new rules are more flexible regarding this.