Changes to Devils and Demons

[Reaper Steve]

It seems that many people that have been playing D&D since 1e (like me) are making the generalization that all these changes will upset the old crowd (to which I belong.)

I just want to say...IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR THESE CHANGES!

Everytime I've tried to get interested in D&D again, I find myself quickly turned off by the 30 yaers worth of mish-mash that is just added to over and over again. I don't like the Great Wheel, or Planescape, or lots of other things aout D&D cosmology. And it's actually pretty hard to ignore. Which is probably why I like low-levels games...most of the wacky stuff can be ignored at that level. There it's like...points of light in world of darkness.

And that's where I see 4e going...a return to a more medieval world, with monsters that aren't in plain sight. And with devils plotting, demons maddening, and angels protecting.

So, to WotC, THANK YOU for cleaning out the closet...make sure you get all the way to the back shelves, and don't forget to sweep from under the rug.

(And to those that like Planescape...you still have it...and for your sake I do hope WotC eventually revitalizes the setting. But, that concept is way too far removed from the common vision of medieval fantasy to be anywhere near the core rulebooks.)

 

[Shemeska]

Similiarly, Baalzebub, mythologically the Lord of Flies, being presented as a slug-man devil instead of an insectoid being is a lame idea.

Just because Gygax randomly picked names from mythology, it doesn't necessarily follow that we can't in some instances opt to go beyond those sources (and frankly the beings he took those names for often had very little in common with the source material).

But back to Baalzebul and the 2e and 3e version of him, his original form when he fell from Mount Celestia and ended up taking control of Maladomini from it's previous Lord of the 7th, Beherit, was indeed that of a powerful man with insectoid features, just like his picture in 1e. He lost that form as a result of subsequent struggles against, and punishment at the hands of Asmodeus.

And if you present him not as a slug, but more of a maggot, it's both disturbing and fitting at the same time.

 

[Pale]

suddenly seduction gets sexy and she is upset? hahah thats awesome. Is their really a difference between demons and devils outside of d&d?

Etymologically speaking, yes, but that's about it.

 

[Shemeska]

I'm hoping that this doesn't insult the Planescape fans here.

Not at all. And I'm going with the same disclaimer as you had in your post: this isn't intended to offend, so roll with me here.

Lately, I think some of the 1e flavor has started to seep back in- Malcanthet and some other newer creations (Obox-Ob, Dagon) are decidedly creepy and unholy, and Eberron's Xoriat is a nice nod to Lovecraft. I see this new fluff as another shift towards the old mystical/unknowable, and I'm really stoked. I want my players to be decidedly creeped out by the presence of a devil, not to think of it as some sort of extra-dimensional super soldier.

And it's wierd, it's honestly wierd, because that's precisely the opposite of what I walk away from the same material with. I don't get the feel from the 1e presentation of those beings that they're unholy, soul devouring terrors, "masters of reality and time". I get from the earliest material that they're the monsters at the end of the planar dungeon. Now it's very possible to go beyond the slim to frankly nonexistant details given to many of them in the 1e MM and MM2, and a lot of DMs did that and spun some really good material from it, but I don't find any of that potential flavor and atmosphere present in the actual written material.

Fast forward to the 2e material on the same subject, and it's there that I finally see some of the fiends portrayed as truly dark, malevolent beings that represent bedrock elements of reality and mortal fears and failures taken physical form. I find towers constructed of billions of screaming mortal souls, grafted together like so many agonized living bricks. I find entities that are virtual living paradoxes, epitomizing selfishness while at the same time wholly prostrating themselves to Evil like a religious concept. They were no longer just monsters, but much worse and the material explored the philosophical elements of just what they were, and how they were different from one another.

The further into 2e's planar material I look, the material gets progressively darker, to a point that in some cases that we haven't seen an equal in 3.x until the past few years (FC:I, FC:II, etc). Some of the early 2e material is still tinged by TSR management's misguided PR attempts, but it ends up darker by far than anything that came before it.

And if you're looking for elements of lovecraftian terror, I don't see it in the early 1e material so much as a see some very fine examples of it in mid/late 2e, such as the description of the "Bells of Othrys" in the Planes of Conflict box set, or whole chapters of Guide to the Ethereal Plane (penned by Mr Bruce Far Realms Cordell).

Now this is only my take on that material, but I'm inclined to believe that the 1e material was more a blank slate, undeveloped enough that you could put whatever thematic spin on it you might have wanted with a creative DM and cooperative players, but that we never really saw those thematic elements actually put into the published planar material to any great extent till the 2e period, with a resurgence of that in late 3.x.

 

[tubbs]

My guess: they're dumping the erinyes, because somebody finally told them the word is plural.

My question: why not go whole hog? It's not just that erinyes and succubi are redundant; demons and devils are.

If alignment plays less of a role (and, actually, it should play none), then what's the distinction for? The distinction between the two is a phoniness ginned up to support a nonsensical cosmology. Why not 'fiends'? There are bad guys from another dimension. Many are humanoid; many are gross. So what?

This would resolve the long-standing problem of nomenclature, too: there's no reason for Baphomet to be a demon and Belial a devil.

The odd thing here is that the 4E folks are perpetuating redundancies, inconsistencies, and arbitrariness. The elision of erinyes is symbolic. It represents the work they ought to be doing, rather than inventing ptolemaic epicycles, as with the ice devils, to explain contradictions in a made-up system.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

this new version reminds me a tad of sandman. Lucifer was sent to hell. And along with him, their are many fallen angles. But not only that. Really evil creatures who were evil before the fall are dawn to this realm as sort of a sanctuary for evil. So that would be the distinction in my view.

 

[Jared Rascher]

Well, even without alignment (I'm playing fiend's advocate here, because I'm not thrilled with the demon/devil trades at this point), its fairly easy to see devils as the more traditional horned, humanoid, handsome/attractive winged "fallen angels," and demons as the strange, otherworldly, Cthulhu-esqe creatures of nightmare.

I'm just saying . . .

 

[Geoffrey]

It is a historical fact that the Great Wheel cosmology is NOT essential to D&D. The Great Wheel cosmology was first published in The Dragon #8 in July 1977. In other words, D&D had already been published for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before Gary Gygax's Great Wheel article was published. Further, in the last sentences of said article Gary wrote: "I think it best to do nothing more than offer the idea for your careful consideration and thorough experimentation. This writer has used only parts of the system in a limited fashion. It should be tried and tested before adoption."

A year later in 1978 the Great Wheel cosmology showed up in the AD&D Players Handbook. It had a mere two pages as the fourth appendix out of five, alongside other clearly optional AD&D concepts such as psionics and bards.

In short, neither in original D&D nor in 1st edition AD&D was the Great Wheel cosmology an essential of D&D. It was merely an option. I am unfamiliar with 2nd edition AD&D, so I can't speak to what was done there with the Great Wheel.

As an illustration, one of THE quintessential D&D campaign worlds is Judges Guild's Wilderlands. Here is a quote from pp. 92-93 of Necromancer's Player's Guide to the Wilderlands: "[T]he Wilderlands was created before the First Edition Player's Handbook and thus was not designed with that particular cosmology. Instead, unlike the planes of other official fantasy settings, which seem so well-traveled, the planes in the Wilderlands should be mysterious and new. They should defy a firm categorization, since they are fluid and undefined and each overlaps the other to a great degree. The early fantasy works of H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and Michael Moorcock definitely influenced the cosmology of the Wilderlands, and the planes reflect it."

What in the Great Wheel cosmology are 17 outer planes are in the Wilderlands' cosmology a mere three: the Netherworld (realm of evil), the Celestial Realm (realm of good), and Arborea (realm of neutrality). Are the Wilderlands missing an essential element of D&D? Obviously not.

In closing, if anyone likes the Great Wheel, fine. But don't make the mistake of asserting that it is essential to D&D.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Not at all. And I'm going with the same disclaimer as you had in your post: this isn't intended to offend, so roll with me here.



And it's wierd, it's honestly wierd, because that's precisely the opposite of what I walk away from the same material with. I don't get the feel from the 1e presentation of those beings that they're unholy, soul devouring terrors, "masters of reality and time". I get from the earliest material that they're the monsters at the end of the planar dungeon. Now it's very possible to go beyond the slim to frankly nonexistant details given to many of them in the 1e MM and MM2, and a lot of DMs did that and spun some really good material from it, but I don't find any of that potential flavor and atmosphere present in the actual written material.

Fast forward to the 2e material on the same subject, and it's there that I finally see some of the fiends portrayed as truly dark, malevolent beings that represent bedrock elements of reality and mortal fears and failures taken physical form. I find towers constructed of billions of screaming mortal souls, grafted together like so many agonized living bricks. I find entities that are virtual living paradoxes, epitomizing selfishness while at the same time wholly prostrating themselves to Evil like a religious concept. They were no longer just monsters, but much worse and the material explored the philosophical elements of just what they were, and how they were different from one another.

The further into 2e's planar material I look, the material gets progressively darker, to a point that in some cases that we haven't seen an equal in 3.x until the past few years (FC:I, FC:II, etc). Some of the early 2e material is still tinged by TSR management's misguided PR attempts, but it ends up darker by far than anything that came before it.

And if you're looking for elements of lovecraftian terror, I don't see it in the early 1e material so much as a see some very fine examples of it in mid/late 2e, such as the description of the "Bells of Othrys" in the Planes of Conflict box set, or whole chapters of Guide to the Ethereal Plane (penned by Mr Bruce Far Realms Cordell).

Now this is only my take on that material, but I'm inclined to believe that the 1e material was more a blank slate, undeveloped enough that you could put whatever thematic spin on it you might have wanted with a creative DM and cooperative players, but that we never really saw those thematic elements actually put into the published planar material to any great extent till the 2e period, with a resurgence of that in late 3.x.

For me, the Devils and Demons lost their "evil mojo" in 2nd ed. dur to too much information. When it comes to other planes & otherworldly terrors, for me, less is more, just as HPL and REH did it. Knowing about their politics and wars them them pedestrian.

 

[Jared Rascher]

It is a historical fact that the Great Wheel cosmology is NOT essential to D&D. The Great Wheel cosmology was first published in The Dragon #8 in July 1977. In other words, D&D had already been published for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before Gary Gygax's Great Wheel article was published. Further, in the last sentences of said article Gary wrote: "I think it best to do nothing more than offer the idea for your careful consideration and thorough experimentation. This writer has used only parts of the system in a limited fashion. It should be tried and tested before adoption."

A year later in 1978 the Great Wheel cosmology showed up in the AD&D Players Handbook. It had a mere two pages as the fourth appendix out of five, alongside other clearly optional AD&D concepts such as psionics and bards.

In short, neither in original D&D nor in 1st edition AD&D was the Great Wheel cosmology an essential of D&D. It was merely an option. I am unfamiliar with 2nd edition AD&D, so I can't speak to what was done there with the Great Wheel.

As an illustration, one of THE quintessential D&D campaign worlds is Judges Guild's Wilderlands. Here is a quote from pp. 92-93 of Necromancer's Player's Guide to the Wilderlands: "[T]he Wilderlands was created before the First Edition Player's Handbook and thus was not designed with that particular cosmology. Instead, unlike the planes of other official fantasy settings, which seem so well-traveled, the planes in the Wilderlands should be mysterious and new. They should defy a firm categorization, since they are fluid and undefined and each overlaps the other to a great degree. The early fantasy works of H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and Michael Moorcock definitely influenced the cosmology of the Wilderlands, and the planes reflect it."

What in the Great Wheel cosmology are 17 outer planes are in the Wilderlands' cosmology a mere three: the Netherworld (realm of evil), the Celestial Realm (realm of good), and Arborea (realm of neutrality). Are the Wilderlands missing an essential element of D&D? Obviously not.

In closing, if anyone likes the Great Wheel, fine. But don't make the mistake of asserting that it is essential to D&D.

There have been several aspects of D&D that aren't "essential," but are still very much a traditional aspect. If 4th edition had scrapped the entire idea of the old planes and went with new outer planes, or planes in general, with new inhabitants, that would be a whole other issue. What is odd is that they are taking some aspects of the Great Wheel and using them, and drastically altering other aspects.

We don't know how much any of these changes will effect the cosmology, but it does seem like the Abyss and the Nine Hells are still in, and the Nine Hells are still the home of devils. So the point is that some elements are making it in, but not others. Its a strange half measure.

Also, the Manual of the Planes came out during 1st edition. This 1st edition rulebook very much cemented the Great Wheel as the "home" of the D&D settings. If you really want to get technical, calling a fighter a fighter and not a "Fighting Man" would then not be intrinsic to D&D either.