Daemons vs. Yugoloths

[Sixchan]

I pronounce it Day-eh-mon.
I prefer it to Yugoloth.

 

[F5]

I use them both interchangably, and I pronounce it like demon.

Basically, I figure that "baatezu" is what fiends from the 9 Hells call themselves in Infernal, "tanar'ri" is what fiends from the abyss call themselves in Abyssal, and "Yugoloth" is what fiends from Gehenna call themselves. The terms Demon and Devil are used by people on the prime, especially those who don't really know any better. Since Yugoloths speak Infernal in my game, the language gets confused in translation, and they get called demons. Only the most pedantic and particular sages bother making the distinction, anymore.

That said, I think "Yugoloth" sounds cooler, so I tend to use that when I'm referring to the creatures in-game. I guess that makes me a pedantic and particular sage. Oh, well...

 

[Aeolius]

To add to the confusion, years ago I added daimons into my campaigns. Before D&D gave us concrete rules and examples of demons which could possess their victims, I devised incorporeal daimons as the masters of possession. And yes, my night hags can breed with them.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I voted Daemon as I'm not a fan of revisionist monster-renaming, but I actually do prefer the Yugoloth names on a pure flavour basis.

I'm strange that way.

 

[coyote6]

I voted yugoloth, but I'd rather have a third choice -- neither really does it for me. "Day-mon" would be okay, but that's not how "daemon" (or "daimon") are pronounced, so they don't work for me at all.

 

[cildarith]

Neither.

DAEMOLOTH!

 

[Orias]

Yugoloth, Taanari, & Baatezu are way better than the petty Prime Material wash of Daeom, Demon, & Devil.

 

[SpuneDagr]

There's a whole lot of mixing-up and bastardization in the various conversions, starting with 1e-2e, and continuing to now.

I don't really know what WotC is trying to do with the names now. They have a listing in the MM for "Demon" which includes a bunch of creatures, most of them Tanar'ri, but not all of them. I honestly do not understand what the bebilith, retriever, and quasit are doing in there. Are they "demons" but not Tanar'ri? If so, is "demon" supposed to mean any CE outsider, with Tanar'ri being a subcategory (or subrace, if you will)?

Same thing with "devils." The MM listing includes mostly Baatezu, but also has Imp and Kyton. Does "devil" mean any LE outsider, with baatezu being a subcategory?

It would stand to reason, then, that a "daemon" refers to any NE outsider, with Yugoloths being a subcategory.

That's not the way they did it, however, and we are forced to wallow in this limbo of inconsistent nomenclature.

 

[Kerrick]

Daemons. Every time I see "yugoloth" I think it's a specific daemon, not a whole group of them. It sounds cheesy anyway... I've always preferred 1E nomenclature.

 

[billd91]

I use them both interchangably, and I pronounce it like demon.

Basically, I figure that "baatezu" is what fiends from the 9 Hells call themselves in Infernal, "tanar'ri" is what fiends from the abyss call themselves in Abyssal, and "Yugoloth" is what fiends from Gehenna call themselves. The terms Demon and Devil are used by people on the prime, especially those who don't really know any better. Since Yugoloths speak Infernal in my game, the language gets confused in translation, and they get called demons. Only the most pedantic and particular sages bother making the distinction, anymore.

That said, I think "Yugoloth" sounds cooler, so I tend to use that when I'm referring to the creatures in-game. I guess that makes me a pedantic and particular sage. Oh, well...

This is pretty much what I do too. I think TSR's reason for shifting the terms was silly, but they did come up with some pretty good alternatives. It makes sense to me that these creatures would have their own term for themselves and that fools summoning them to the Prime might call them something completely different (and simplistic).