Changes to Devils and Demons

[mhensley]

I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.

Yep, I don't see how it has anything to do with making the game better.

 

[Anthraxus]

W...t...f...!

 

[Reaper Steve]

I like it...esp drawing the lines between demons and devils. The Ice Devil thing initally strikes me wierd (I don't mind change, so why leave this one), but I can buy the rationale. It actually sets up an interesting dynamic. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Also confirms yugoloths.

 

[Shemeska]

Don't Know If Want....

Hmm... my immediate reaction is that this screws with the timeline of the origin of Baator, and we've now had a variation of the origin of that plane for pretty much every book that has come out since the late 90's. The Abyss has had more stability than the plane of manifest LE, which is unfortunate.

The twisted little origin for gelugons might be a really nifty idea, but we'll see how the fluff handles this. I can be won over on this one. 'loth origin gelugons, bound by contract and chaffing against it. This could really be developed into some cool stuff. EDIT: 10 minutes later, I'm digging this one.

Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm. Jacobs did some really awesome material with Malcanthet and her rivals, and this change really makes moving them forward into 4th difficult, unless we want to have succubi/erinyes populating both Baator and the Abyss, having split in an ancient ideological schism (or the CE ones having been perverted by X Abyssal lord, obyrith, etc). The in-game rationalization here needs to be amazing or else this change may really, really present difficulties.

 

[mhensley]

I'm cool with the whole " re-sort " thing, but I mean, come on! It's almost as if they WANT religious groups to lay the freakin' smackdown on them with an origin story like that.

Maybe George Lucas is writing for them now. Clerics are chosen based on their midichlorian count and paladins are given birth from virgin mothers.

 

[cincinnati reds]

So I guess I'm the one who likes this.

Of course, I like monotheism in my D&D too, so I suppose my taste for the mythical/divine in my games is different from most.

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't even like Planescape, but I have to admit I don't really care for some of these changes either, but it still to early to judge. Right now we are looking at a tidbit who knows what the actual write up in the 4E MM will say.

 

[Jer]

I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.

Meh. The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that "implied setting" stuff that we've been hearing about. Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.

The third bullet point is actually the most interesting one to me. I've been wondering what the devil/demon distinction would be if they are downplaying alignment as a game mechanic in this edition. I'm not yet sure what I think about it - I don't mind devils looking mostly humanoid, but there's no reason that you can't have humanoid looking demons as well - you don't want to ignore Grazzt's status as a demon lord, for example. OTOH - collapsing succubi and eriynes into a single devil type bothers me not in the slightest, since I've always thought that succubi should have been devils in the first place and that eriynes were just added to the devil side to make up for that initial mistake.

That was my reaction as well. I didn't like them as they were. The whole subset of beings who are after your soul just never worked for me. Anyone want to explain why they like demons and devils so much?

I like 'em because they're the ultimate evil - a great set of villains to capstone a campaign with. I don't like having races who are "evil by birth" in my games (smacks of too much racism to me), but a group of beings who are supposed to be the true "incarnations of evil"? That's a set of villains I can sink my teeth into.

Also, given the age that many of the designers are, I suspect there's a bit of "compensation" going on for second editions cow-towing to the forces who screamed about D&D being "demonic" back in the day.

Also, James "fomer Methodist minister" Wyatt is on the team, so there may be some knowledge about devils and demons he's adding from his own studies...

 

[Reaper Steve]

Oh yeah...and the whole 'too close to RW thing'...nah. Devils need a credible reason to be heinously nasty...and I think killing their deity fits the bill. Bible thumpers will thump over the demons/devils regardless, so if they're in the game (and the should be!) then let them be the nasty things they should be! And remember...they are there so the players can overcome the evil...which is a good thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.

It's change for the sake of clarity. The division between demons and devils was pretty obscure, previously. Explaining to a new player "well, they hate each other, because of the ancient war between chaos and order" means a) explaining what the heck THAT means and b) why they should care or why it's cool.

There can still be a Blood War, but here on the Prime Material, now the two types of monsters are more distinct and hopefully encountering one won't be interchangeable with an encounter with the other kind. (And, YES, in Planescape games or in games where planar politics are important, they could already feel differently. But when Fiend X showed up in a dungeon, he was pretty much interchangeable with Fiend Y.)

And I'm gratified the Succubus/Erinyes overlap is gone. I'm sure the Erinyes will return in modified form eventually. And all this can be grist for Planescape metastory.