Changes to Devils and Demons

[Wormwood]

Fat chance of that, since Andy Collins hates modrons.

Only according to Kanye West.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A return to Milton for inspiration? Yes, please.

 

[Tewligan]

I'm failing to see how the benefits of this move can possibly outweigh the drawbacks.

Retconning creatures that have belonged to a specific type since 1e (or pre-1e) causes numerous problems for anyone wishing to continue campaigns or use materials from past editions.

This is a huge blow to backward compatibility. The Fiendish Codices and Demonomicon series of articles (both wildly popular and well-respected) have just been rendered flawed for reference in 4e.

I don't mind changes to the origin, or what-have-you, but changing creature types is problematic. Why not just leave them out and create something new, achieving the same end result without any of the resulting chaos? Telling me that succubi won't be included will disappoint me, but I can still hold out hope that they will be added later or can convert them myself. Telling me succubi are now devils is far more work to undo.

I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.

 

[Shade]

I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.

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.

 

[Simplicity]

It almost seems like the Wizards folks are trying to anger their fans.
Buh-bye Greyhawk.
Don't convert, but that's what we're doing.
We're going to focus on fluff books between now and 4e, but don't count on any of that fluff being accurate because we're throwing it all out with the new edition.

Coming out with the Fiendish Codex and then immediately invalidating the whole thing is kind of a strange thing to do...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, I'll add my two cents...

The notion of "devils tend to look more human, where demons tend to look more monstrous" is something I though about a while ago, and prefer, but never thought I'd see. I'm glad I get to, now.

And honestly, I'm fine with the new background for devils. I think it's more interesting, and as someone else said, if some people can't tell the difference between the death of one fictional god from a pagan pantheon and an insult against real-world "God," they're going to find stuff in the game to object to no matter what.

As far as questions like "Will Graz'zt still be a demon?" I'm pretty sure the article said that the "devils look more human, demons don't" was a tendency not a hard-and-fast rule.

And frankly, I really don't see how this screws too much with ongoing stories. Sure, if the origins of the devils was vital to your story, that's a problem, but other than that, they still occupy the same basic roll in the multiverse that they used to.

I can see how the rolling of succubi and erinyes into one could impact some folk, though.

 

[Remathilis]

I can see how the rolling of succubi and erinyes into one could impact some folk, though.

It means one less almost-naked demon picture in the monster manual

 

[Anthraxus]

In fact, in one of the GenCon interviews one of the main designers stated they were told to design the game without being concerned about breaking the "sacred cows." Obviously that included the "profane cows."

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. :\

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I wonder if alignment is getting a real overhaul. The big difference between devils and demons was the law-chaos spectrum. Planar fluff aside, allow me this for brevity, there is a new paradigm in town. If the new morality is shades of grey, you might need to redefine some iconic alignment creatures. Think of the modrons! The Modrons!

I asked about Alignment at the 4e seminar at Gencon, and that, coupled with the devils article, is leading me to believe that 4e won't have Alignments. Which wouldn't be a big loss IMO, it'll just be interesting to see how they do things like paladins (who, from what I have heard, can serve Asmodeus in the new game).

 

[DaveMage]

It means one less almost-naked demon picture in the monster manual

BASTARDS!!!!


On a more serious note, there are several things I'm sure I'll port from 4.0 into my 3.5 game....


...this change is not one of them.

+1 for v3.5!