Changes to Devils and Demons

[Vocenoctum]

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.

I like it in and of itself, but it's sort of the Implied Setting that's getting a bit irksome. Eberron may have had it's oddities, but folks complained about it over using an old setting. Now we get another new "setting", and it's got stuff built into it that will conflict with established settings, from the start.

 

[coyote6]

If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign? I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.

Hard to say, without knowing how much the fluff changes will be reflected by changes in crunch. E.g., the current (3.5e) erinyes and succubus aren't terribly similar; mythologically speaking, they're absolutely different (vengeance-seeking furies vs. seductive sex fiends). But in 4e, they're absolutely the same [because there's only the one entity]. Hrm.

If they're going to make sizable changes in the planar cosmology, I hope they go ahead and give a good, clear explanation of the relationship between various outsiders and various deities. The current relationship just bugs me (are celestials the servants of good gods? Sometimes, but sometimes not, apparently. None of the fiends seem to be dedicated servants of evil gods, so when Hextor wants to smite someone, who does he send? He calls the temp service from Hell, apparently). Gods need servants to work through!

So, they're defining devils as fallen celestials; celestials are apparently servants of at least some gods; hopefully, evil gods get servants (that don't work for someone else), too. If "celestials" work for evil/malevolent/antagonist gods as well as good -- that's cool, too.

Also, I wonder if names like "Baator" are just going to be gone? Hopefully, yugoloth goes -- I always found it to feel too "made up", somehow.

So, if devils are humanoids, and insectile ice demons are somehow tied to yugoloths, I'm guessing yugoloths might be buggy fiends (or at least multilimbed). Demons -- demons will be big bestial things, rather than weapon wielders?

As a change to existing campaigns, I think this would be annoying & a bit aggravating. They said converting 3.5e campaign/adventure to 4e would be a lot of work, so they wouldn't be producing a conversion document; this shows a glimmer of why it will be so much work. It's not just mechanical changes! That's kind of aggravating, on the one hand (I have a whole lot of 3.x adventures I haven't ran, and I might prefer 4e to 3.x), but exciting on the other (new stuff!).

And I really liked the stuff Jacobs, Mona, & co. did in the Demonomicons (and in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends), and this greatly contradicts those (unless you can just pick up Malcanthet, Socothbenoth, etc., from Demonland and drop them into Devilville).

For whole new campaigns -- sounds cool. "Ultimates" cosmology -- I think I can dig it.

Also, it seems like it would fit okay in Eberron -- you just ignore the stuff about the origins of devils & Asmodeus & the Nine Hells (and you were already doing that in 3.5e!). The "humanoid/not humanoid" split makes at least as much sense for Eberron as "chaos/law". In Eberron, fiends can just be fiends, and "devil" vs. "demon" are just taxonomies created by mortals.

 

[el-remmen]

The first thing about 4E I hear that I really like, but then again, I don't consider it a "rules" thing so does not improve or worsen my opinion of the system "so far".

It also closely mirrors the cosmology of Aquerra, except I did away with the devil/demon distinction entirely and were just words used by humans to describe these fiends. When they fell from their angelic grace, there were those who still want to set up a new kingdom of rule, and those who wanted total freedom to do whatever they wanted and perhaps even destroy the cosmos itself. The one who wanted to re-achieve their divine status (for their own ends) established the 'Stem of Hell' (divided into Nine easy pieces), and those who remained in 'the abyss' of chaos around it are sometimes called "demons". So, in my game there have been pit fiend "demons" and succubus "devils".

Also, don't see the big deal about the merge of the succubus and eryines - if you REALLY need to have both, then when the rules come out use the guidelines for making monsters and make them based on their old versions. It is like an hour's work, TOPS!.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Despite your particular predilections, I'm not sure how getting rid of the Planescape cosmology and backstory has anything at all to do with whether or not something is D&D.

I'm a huge Eberron fan, and that basically took Baator, and the Abyss, and Mount Celestia to the sacred slaughterhouse, and I'm pretty sure I was still playing D&D when we broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.

Or are you saying I wasn't actually playing D&D?

Heck, my campaign world is THE EARTH, far Far FAR in the future. The gods are the actual deities out of mythology....and alien gods. Monsters are the result of genetic engineering, or are aliens, or are from other planes. Demons are from HP Lovecrafts/RE Howwards "Outer Void of Cosmic Insanity". Magic just works. Why? Shoot, nobody even knows there was a time w/o magic.

And I'm pretty sure we were still playing D&D when the dwarven cleric, elven fighter/rogue and human wizard broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.

 

[coyote6]

The 3E Book of Fiends was also written by Chris Pramas, who has said his company will support 4E. While Erik's work is great, he's not the only one capable of hitting the ball out of the park on this subject.

FWIW, that's not quite true.

The Book of Fiends was written by Aaron Loeb, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas, and Robert Schwalb. The devil section was mostly originally published as Legions of Hell, which was indeed written by Chris Pramas. However, most of the demon section was originally published as The Armies of the Abyss, which was written (entirely, AFAIK) by Erik Mona.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Yeah, one would almost think they were looking to piss off some bible belt people. Free Press FTW? A desperate try to make DnD cool in the eyes of the younger generation? Either way, I definitely like it

Please don't attempt to make this a regional battle, thanks.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.

I know others have said it before, but...

Why not? They are too similar. I never could tell them apart, and unless you remind me of the name Pit Fiend, I tend to just call both of them Balor. Either they should change them radically so that they are different, or roll them into one great incarnation of evil.

 

[Lord Zack]

This is so stupid and pointless. I mean it's one thing not to like it, it's another when theres absolutely no reason for it. It's change for the sake of change, and it's a change in the wrong direction IMO.

The earlier fluff was fine, more than fine and they butcher it. Why? This has been the way D&D has been for a while. It's part of the implied setting. If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game. What if they change goblins to be mischeavous fey, or make gorgons be the name of the race now called medusas or have dragons all be one fire breathing race? That's not D&D. That's a new game. Sure it might be intersing to change some of this stuff for you're home campaign or a campaign setting but go to far and you end up with Everquest or Warcraft or something else that can't be called D&D. I might want to DM Everquest or Warcraft, but I definetlty want to DM D&D and I expect WOTC to give me D&D. Otherwise they might as well sell the property and create they're own new fantasy RPG with whatever changes to the setting they want. The new rules are good, that's what a new edition should provide, not a completely new game. Leave this reimagining stuff for OGL products made by other companies.

 

[Mark Chance]

In any case, WotC are quite rightly not designing to try to appease the anti-D&D crowd....

I'm also slowly growing convinced they've decided to not to appease a sizeable segment of the pro-D&D crowd.

IMO, there is one section of 'religious folk' whom WotC should be concerned about, and that's the segment who are also gamers. As long as they don't drive them (okay, us) away, then they're okay.

WoTC isn't going to offend religious gamers. That'll continue to be done by other gamers who insult the religious by opining about "fundamentalists," describing certain Christians as "overly jumpy," and tossing out the tired perjorative "Bible thumper" (but, hey, at least they didn't lob a completely unwarranted insult at a talented, respected game designer).

This change to demons and devils is much ado about nothing. From the little real information in this thread, it's 99% style, 1% substance.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I am also very much on board with the changes proposed...

Of course, I don't have any stake (from a game/campaign standpoint) in the Great Wheel or canon Planescape material. I can understand why others would not desire these changes, but in the end I'm happy with the changes.