Confusing Demons and Such

[Ipissimus]

While I have yet to get Worlds and Monsters in my hot little hands, the exerpt 'Demons and Such' from the main site is confusing me. There seems to be a bit of a logic hole in the design if the article is accurate.

Ok, I'll admit that the move of the Succubi from Demon to Devil is disappointing for me (as you can imagine from my sig). It means that, most likely, Malcanthet is no more. Hopefully, Glasya will make the cut and I'll be able to throw my lot in with her (Disciple of Glasya... not a bad ring to it). But I see their reasoning and I can roll with that.

What's making me scratch my head is the next bit about the Yugoloths in conjunction with what they said about the succubi. Ok, Yugoloths are now proper demons. Why? In the previous paragraphs it was explained that Succubi were obviously devils and the argument was quite compelling. Succubi are devious seductresses that wear a fair face, I'll admit they do sound like Devils. But the former Loths, a militaristic race of fiends that organize themselves into armies and sell their services to the highest bidder seems Devilish rather than Demonic.

Maybe it's the lack of explaination in the article? The writer assumes that they 'are more demonic than devilish' then bases his whole argument on that without explaining how he came to the conclusion. They say they want to make the two demonic races clearly cut, yet the former Loths seem to muddy those waters.

The 'loth's behaviour doesn't strike me as demonic, demons being described as ravening, unstoppable, forces of nature uncaring for concepts such as morality or wealth. Such a monster dealing with mortals rather than ripping them to shreads or bending under a mage's will seems anathema.

So, is it thier appearances that make them demonic? I can't see that either, what with Ice Devils being insectoid or Bone Devils with scorpion tails.

Perhaps it was a metagame consideration that forced the loths into the Demon camp? Maybe they wanted some Demons that PCs can talk to on occasion or who have a good reason to accompany a chaotic evil mortal on amicable terms (such as patrolling the Drow city). Or maybe the preview isn't telling the whole story yet. Maybe the 'loths fall on the demon side yet still straddle some form of 'middle ground' between the two, maybe they weren't interested in becoming embroiled in the Devilish Heirarchy. Could be interesting, have to wait and see. Or maybe, like in previous editions, the 'loths just got stuffed in to whatever crack in the setting was handy at the time and then largely ignored... though they seem to make a big deal out of them in the article, too big for the devs not to have put some thought into the problem.

Anyone else find this confusing or have a solution? Until this point came up, I would have said that the new cosmology seemed to have a fair ammount of internal consistency and logic based on their stated goals (even if I do have some emotional investment in The Great Wheel that I'm trying to forget when I read the previews).

 

[Belphanior]

So, is it thier appearances that make them demonic? I can't see that either, what with Ice Devils being insectoid or Bone Devils with scorpion tails.

Who said those are devils in 4e?

It sounds to me like the typical devil is "baatezu" and the typical demon is "tanar'ri". Though I don't know if those specific terms will still be used. Some fiends will still differ from that norm. We now have demons from the "yugoloth" strain. They don't corrupt, seduce, or wear human guises. They fight, destroy, and look monstrous. The only slightly devil-ish trait is their bargaining. But overall they still seem like annihilators rather than tempters.

 

[FourthBear]

Actually, I believe I read somewhere that Ice Devils (gelugons) will have their origin a bit rearranged, such that they were demons that were accepted into the service of one of the Arch-devils (I think Mephistopheles).

Back on your primary point, I do agree that many daemons don't fit all that well into the demon archtype. In particular, the arcanadaemon is practically begging to fit into the Hellish hierarchy. However, some of them, like the piscodaemon and the mezzodaemon seem to fit just fine into the demon category.

I think the primary problem is in deciding what exactly are the characteristics of a daemon that distinguish it from the other types of fiends. Before, their NE alignment tag and their later mercenary natures were sufficient. I'm not all that convinced that being mercenary or selfish is enough of a hook to hang a fiendish race on. You could go with the characteristics of the oinodaemon in 1e and make daemons disease and parasitic in nature as fiends. That's a niche that probably could be exploited pretty well. The problem being that the two oldest daemons, the nyaca- and mezzo- really don't fit into that scheme very well without retrofitting.

Actually, I think one of big reasons for putting them in the demon camp is historical. They were first noted being summoned by the drow, very associated with demons and the demonic Lolth. So I suspect some designer thought this would be in keeping with the older material.

 

[Shemeska]

Actually, I think one of big reasons for putting them in the demon camp is historical. They were first noted being summoned by the drow, very associated with demons and the demonic Lolth. So I suspect some designer thought this would be in keeping with the older material.

The claim is that it's historical. However their original appearance way back when doesn't actually give them any association with demons. They just happen to be fiends summoned and bound into service by the drow of that particular module. That the drow are CE and worship Lolth is incidental. The adventure describes them as being just as likely to be found in association with devils as with demons, and then mentions that they're native to Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. There's nothing I see linking them to demons or the Abyss, and of course their subsequent development and the associated fluff through the editions presents them as decidedly non-demonic in the 4e sense of how all demons are supposed to act.

They don't fit into either the demonic or devilish camps, but they've been forced into one of those defined, pre-packaged 4e roles nonetheless. I'm really at a loss over the justification provided in the preview material, because it frankly isn't accurate to the history of the game.

Some of the least intelligent, lesser yugoloths might vaguely be more fit on the surface to be destroyers in the 4e demon mold, and they're certainly less humanoid than not. However beyond the first few tiers, they don't fit that 4e mold at all. Yagnoloths, marraenoloths, arcanaloths, ultroloths, baernaloths, etc don't fit the 4e demonic mold at all, and are more devilish in the 4e sense (this lumpy, force fitted duality in 4e fiends really doesn't work for me).

If things aren't set in stone for 4e yet, this really needs to be reevaluated.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Also, as W&M mentions, the 1e versions were called daemons. This was changed to yugoloth in 2e.

 

[Shemeska]

Also, as W&M mentions, the 1e versions were called daemons. This was changed to yugoloth in 2e.

Though it wasn't pronounced demon as W&M claims. The only source that gave a pronunciation guide (an article in Dragon) had it as D-ay-mon.

 

[FourthBear]

It seems there are several possiblities:

1) For DMs that don't want to change the yugoloths, their powers and motivations in any way, simply declare them their own class of fiend, just as in previous editions.
2) For DMs that wish to incorporate them into the 4e cosmology, but don't really want to change much of the above: declare them a variety of demon. There's nothing that says *all* demons have to destructive disorganized beasties. That's just the defining theme for the worldbuilder that wants clear distinctions. If that's not what you want or you think the distinctions are too limiting, go ahead and change it. Putting them in the devil's camp likely introduces too many specifics to suit.
3) Split the yugoloths into the variety of fiend they seem to suit best. Subtle manipulators in the devil pile, destructive beasties in the demon pile and toss a coin for those in between.
4) Come up with a new defining niche and characteristic for yugoloths that justifies them being their own category, assuming that's desired.

I do think that they need to be reevaluated, but I think that will mean coming up with a reason for them to be their own class of fiend, if that's going to be the case. If they're just another bunch of fiends whose main characteristic is that they aren't really as destructive as demons or as organized as the devils, I'm not really inspired to do much. They need some trait, quality or something to rally around, IMO. The trouble is that they've never really had this in any edition, beyond being the NE fiend flavor and the bits introduced concerning the Blood War.

 

[med stud]

From what I have gathered about demons and especially their stated goals in the excerpt is that they are not necessarily "Hulk smash" in their desire to destroy. I view it more how they conceive their perfect world; devils want to rule it, demons want to see it burn.

I can see a sophisticated, honey tounged demon that intrigue and make bargains but those bargains all aim to cause strife and chaos. They are kinds of beings that step by step manipulating the king and nobles in a country make the country collapse into civil war after which they leave.

From what little I know about yugoloths I could fit them into that camp. They don't want to rule, they want to cause suffering.

 

[small pumpkin man]

IIRC, they look more like demons than devils. (remember that ice devils are technically demons), but they were vaguely humanoid, so I'm sure they could have changed that, I think the important difference was they destroy things, they don't tempt things, the fact that they're organized is very "undemony" yes, but remember that the destroy/tempt dichotomy is more iconic in 4E than the organized/unorganized dichotomy.

-edit, damn ninjas

 

[The Shadow]

It seems there are several possiblities:

Well said, sir.

4) Come up with a new defining niche and characteristic for yugoloths that justifies them being their own category, assuming that's desired.

Here's a free idea for anyone interested.

Devils are the astral fiends, demons the elemental ones. Yugoloths could be the fiends of the Shadowfell. To my mind, this fits in very well with their traditional association with disease. (Which would need to be played up.)

Yugoloths represent entropy, the slow grinding down of life into death, of health into putrefaction and decay, of high ideals into cynicism. They are the eternal worm in the apple of life - and they want to see the apple dry up until everything is like themselves. It's not so much that they want to destroy or to rule, they want their misery to become everyone's misery. Misery does love company, after all.

Depending on just how far back the Shadowfell goes (or at least the forces that produced this shadow of the 'real' world go), they could have been behind a lot of stuff. Perhaps a yugoloth left the seed of evil for Tharizdun to find; perhaps they whispered in Asmodeus' ear that he could become a god; perhaps they even stirred up trouble between the gods and the primordials.

They've fallen far since those days; I doubt the Shadowfell was their original home. Nowadays many of them specialize in warping the energies of the Shadowfell into new plagues and terrors for the material plane.

Charon and his daemons are much more suited to the Astral Sea, so I'd just say they're not yugoloths at all, just a demigod-like being with unusual servants. Or, since Charon is so associated with Hell, perhaps even tie him to the devils somehow. [EDIT: Hmmm. Given that the Shadowfell *is* the land of the dead, perhaps not... He could fit in there just fine.]

On the other hand, the 'loths could pick up a Ygorl-like figure, which really never made sense for the slaadi to me anyway. (Do the slaadi live in the Elemental Chaos now? I'd bet a lot that the githzerai do.)

(By the way, I've always seen the genies as being closer to fey than elementals - in Arabian myth they're very fey-like. Efreeti could be seen from this point of view as almost the Fey fiends!