Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3742073" data-attributes="member: 19857">Meh.&nbsp; The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that &quot;implied setting&quot; stuff that we've been hearing about.&nbsp; Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.The third bullet point is actually the most interesting one to me.&nbsp; I've been wondering what the devil/demon distinction would be if they are downplaying alignment as a game mechanic in this edition.&nbsp; I'm not yet sure what I think about it - I don't mind devils looking mostly humanoid, but there's no reason that you can't have humanoid looking demons as well - you don't want to ignore Grazzt's status as a demon lord, for example.&nbsp; OTOH - collapsing succubi and eriynes into a single devil type bothers me not in the slightest, since I've always thought that succubi should have been devils in the first place and that eriynes were just added to the devil side to make up for that initial mistake.I like 'em because they're the ultimate evil - a great set of villains to capstone a campaign with.&nbsp; I don't like having races who are &quot;evil by birth&quot; in my games (smacks of too much racism to me), but a group of beings who are supposed to be the true &quot;incarnations of evil&quot;?&nbsp; That's a set of villains I can sink my teeth into.&nbsp; Also, given the age that many of the designers are, I suspect there's a bit of &quot;compensation&quot; going on for second editions cow-towing to the forces who screamed about D&amp;D being &quot;demonic&quot; back in the day.Also, James &quot;fomer Methodist minister&quot; Wyatt is on the team, so there may be some knowledge about devils and demons he's adding from his own studies...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3742073, member: 19857"] 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. The third bullet point is actually the most interesting one to me. I've been wondering what the devil/demon distinction would be if they are downplaying alignment as a game mechanic in this edition. I'm not yet sure what I think about it - I don't mind devils looking mostly humanoid, but there's no reason that you can't have humanoid looking demons as well - you don't want to ignore Grazzt's status as a demon lord, for example. OTOH - collapsing succubi and eriynes into a single devil type bothers me not in the slightest, since I've always thought that succubi should have been devils in the first place and that eriynes were just added to the devil side to make up for that initial mistake. I like 'em because they're the ultimate evil - a great set of villains to capstone a campaign with. I don't like having races who are "evil by birth" in my games (smacks of too much racism to me), but a group of beings who are supposed to be the true "incarnations of evil"? That's a set of villains I can sink my teeth into. Also, given the age that many of the designers are, I suspect there's a bit of "compensation" going on for second editions cow-towing to the forces who screamed about D&D being "demonic" back in the day. Also, James "fomer Methodist minister" Wyatt is on the team, so there may be some knowledge about devils and demons he's adding from his own studies... [/QUOTE]

Verification