Changes to Devils and Demons

[bastrak]

The changes to Demons and Devils just feel wrong to me, particularly the change to the Erinyes and the Succubus. It just makes me want to continue with 3.5 which I plan to do and reduces my enthusiasm for 4e.

I am not in favour of dumbing down the Great Wheel cosmology in favour of some simplified version either.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, by removing it from the roster of evil outsiders, they actually have the opportunity to do this, by designing from scratch a creature that more faithfully matches the original mythology, in a future product. They may or may not end up doing so, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it. The erinyes should fill a role similar to the inevitables, if anything.

That's an interesting idea. I'm OK with removing them from the devils' roster, but I would still leave their alignment as evil.

 

[Nikosandros]

Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being. If you want to erase most of that apparently, a different system with different core assumptions for basic monsters might be more appropriate.

Well, I honestly don't think that the interaction between demons and devils are such a big deal in defining the assumptions of D&D. In AD&D they were just two separate groups of evil creatures without any specific interaction....

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

*shrug*

As long as the succubus stays sexy ...

I've never really used demons & devils much, so while I think it is irritating to turn that much D&D history on its head, I'm not really affected by it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

- Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.

- Erynies are the torturers of the Cosmos. They seek out those guilty of abominable crimes and torture the hell (pun intended) out of them.

How is that "similar territory"?

Hmm. Because of teh hawtness? Can't have two physically beautiful, evil, human-looking fiends I guess. A gorgeous "monster" can only have a single purpose, regardless of what it actually does, and that is to look pretty. That's the purpose.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?

By that reasoning, Eberron isn't D&D as it replaces the Great Wheel with its own planar cosmology.

I'm not really a fan of the Great Wheel either, half-a-dozen different outer planes all inhabited by these horned, bat-winged supernaturally evil creatures. What's the point? They are all basically Hell.

 

[getgoldcardsoul]

I always thought of Erinyes more like dominatrices (Lawful subtype as well as their Animate Rope type ability), seducing and then forcing men to do their will, while succubi are just out to destroy for the thrill. I figured those are different enough! ...but I guess this is a case of fluff being ignored for monsters having only one specific purpose: being killed within 5 rounds.

Oh well. Conceptually I always liked flavor, but I could always come up with that myself. When reading fluff in books, it takes me a looong time to get through... unless its exceptional. For instance, the "Races of..." series, though somewhat insightful, took me a while to read; I guess it just wasn't interesting enough for me. Now take old 2e Planescape fluff and I gulp it down like I was in a desert without water for a day! It might be because the few books I've read were more narrative in Planescape.

Whatever. I should look at this for what the rules do and not what their little monster manual says I should do with them.


...poor Erinyes... I hardly knew thee... let alone could pronounce that diphthong!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:

- Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.

- Erynies are the torturers of the Cosmos. They seek out those guilty of abominable crimes and torture the hell (pun intended) out of them.

How is that "similar territory"?

As has been pointed out on other threads (listen for the sounds of people kicking gnomes ), mythological roots don't usually translate into D&D terms. In D&D terms, the big difference between succubi and eryines were their wings and which Evil Club they belonged to.

I can't for a moment imagine they won't be back by the time MM3 hits the shelves. Probably sooner. They're just giving up their seat on the MM1 bus in favor of something more dissimilar as compared to the succubus.

 

[getgoldcardsoul]

Hmm. Because of teh hawtness? Can't have two physically beautiful, evil, human-looking fiends I guess. A gorgeous "monster" can only have a single purpose, regardless of what it actually does, and that is to look pretty. That's the purpose.

Heh. Why not fold Nymph into that as well, then? Oh, different enough fluff (evil and nature), I guess.

 

[Wormwood]

I am not in favour of dumbing down the Great Wheel cosmology in favour of some simplified version either.

Streamlining =/= "dumbing down"