Changes to Devils and Demons

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Will skeletons be missing entirely from 4E because the Chinese censors banned them from WoW, and WOTC wants 4E to be easily portable to the global market? (I'm not kidding about the Chinese censors either)

Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

My bad in not looking up the other authors; I misspoke when I suggested that only Pramas and Mona worked on it. No slight was intended to them.

My point stands, though: Erik, as awesome as he is, is not the only one capable of writing a 4E Book of Fiends by any means.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

It's a change for the sake of clarity. They're not doing it for you, they're doing it for new players.

If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game.

So, Eberron isn't D&D? (As others have asked.)

Or the Wilderlands?

Or the Scarred Lands?

Or Dark Sun?

None of those are remotely the same world as the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.

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?

What if they change elves into elephants?

There's no point freaking out and deciding that everything's going to be turned upside down until you see it happen.

And in the 3E era, the Creature Catalogue has thrived here at ENWorld (and shown up in Dragon), reprinting the old fluff with modern crunch. The same thing will happen in 4E. No one is coming to your house, burning your books. Use whatever fluff you like. Ignore the succubus/erinyes thing and keep on truckin'.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Loud != Large

I honestly suspect that fewer people than you might think will be upset about this.

And, again, the point is to make D&D easier to pick up and get into few new players, which is something most people think is a very good idea, indeed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game.

The implied setting has changed with every new edition since the beginning of the game.

In Basic, not all chromatic dragons were evil, and the only metallic was gold.

In 1E, there was no such thing as Baatezu or Tanar'ri.

The default setting of 2E was Forgotten Realms. It was Greyhawk in 1E and 3E. It was "The Known World" (which sort of became Mystara) in Basic.

Vecna was a dead lich in 1E, a demigod in 2E, and a god in 3E.

Numerous archfiends vanished or appeared between editions.

Only humans could be paladins until 3E.

Orcs changed from lawful evil to chaotic evil in 3E.

Kobolds didn't used to be reptiles related to dragons.

Half-orcs, monks, and assassins ceased to exist in the default setting from 1E to 2E, and returned from 2E to 3E.

Psionics completely changed, not only in mechanics, but in flavor.

If you don't care for the implied setting changes we've heard about in 4E, that's your prerogative. But to claim that this is the first time such things have happened is simply inaccurate.

 

[JoelF]

Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.

Actually, I read the story in the Associated Press, but unfortunately, I can't find a link to the original story anymore as it's too old and the news sites I use don't keep them around that long.

Even if it was a false story, I made the remark in a humorous example.

 

[Klaus]

One thing occurred to me.

Devil will be the weapon wielders.

Demons will not.

Currently, the top Devil, the Pit Fiend, has no weapons.

Currently, the top Demon, the Balor, wields weapons.

Will we see a switcheroo (moving the Balor away from his inspiration, the Balrog)? Will the top fiends not be representative of their kind?

Speculation begins... now.

 

[Jer]

So you can see, Erinyes as temptress's with different wings WERE the norm until 3.5. Its also easy to see they DO share a similar position in the game: evil winged hawt woman of doom. And since succubi is a more familiar name, guess which one is being kept in 4e...

Thank you. I was just heading to pore through my books to see if I was imagining things. I couldn't figure out why so many people were insisting that erinyes and succubi filled such different roles, when I remembered erinyes as being basically devilish succubi. And now I know why - the last time I used erinyes in any of my campaigns was when I was running a Planescape campaign back in the day - I haven't really looked at them since the 3.5 upgrade because I haven't needed them. I thought I was losing my mind or something...

 

[JoelF]

Another thing that bothers me about this change is the implication that:

a) this simplies and makes the demon/devil split more logical
b) that this will therefore make it easier for new players to learn the game

I have to refute these assumptions because:

a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons (in their historic and current incarnation at least) which are embodiments of chaotic evil - they don't HAVE to make sense, sicne chaos allows all sorts of forms, even hot human looking women demons. *

b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, and espeically those women ones - they're just the same, so how can some be demons and some be devils"? Personally, I think clearing up tough rules and makeing the game more faster are ways to get new players into the game easier, but this change is not going to impact new players in any way.

* - For this matter, perhaps maenads don't exist in 4E, because they are also hot women monsters which go and kill you.

 

[Voadam]

I'm a little torn on this. I love making disparate things mesh and I like tying in the old history.

Outsider alignment subtypes, alignment DR, holy/unholy weapons and alignment spells are some of the only alignment things I like. I love hard defined alignment mechanics, I hate mushy alignment concepts and descriptions otherwise. The Blood War was the only non mechanical alignment thing I really liked and defined law vs. chaos concretely from a cosmos story perspective.

I was never really happy with the monstrous devils even with their Dante pedigree and always wanted better fluff for why they are the way they are.

Making devils human but diabolic looking is a good way to do things, but description wise I think that makes them mostly succubi and arch devils and not a lot of anything they were before. I really don't see bone devils fitting in for example.