Demon Lords and Princes: How *Bad* Should They Be?

[Ripzerai]

That's the kind of free thinking that pervades Planescape fan lore. The kind of stuff I've seen you write yourself.

It's not the "free thinking" I have a problem with. I'm fine with the idea that those demons who kill their lords become them - that's kind of a cool idea.

What I object to is trying to use that idea as a justification for making an Abyssal lord less powerful than the guy he used to be before his transformation.

A true free thinker wouldn't bind his awesome idea to something so nonsensical.

I'm surprised at you. You once created a website devoted to improving fiends, so I know you don't like the new ultrawimpy models any more than I do. So why waste so much personal time and effort defending an idea you don't even like?

Because, simply put, it's not that simple. As I put it in the closing sentence of the quoted post, doing so would not turn out the most broadly usable product.

It is that simple. A product that's not directly compatible with the core books is less usable than one that's compatible. They could move everything up by 2 CR without hurting the Epic-is-bad crowd one bit.

An Ythrak is a waste of space...

Heh. We agree there.

I find the that one subset of the D&D audience expects their desires be tended to ahead of all others simply unreasonable.

That's not what's happening, though. This isn't about those of us who'd rather the demon lords were all lesser deities, or even about those of us who'd like them to be around CR 30. One subset of the D&D audience expects that a modicrum of common sense be applied in a context where it wouldn't hurt its usefulness for anyone.

Others think that's absolutely outrageous, and are willing to spend pages and pages telling us so, without saying why.

There are reasons that I hold the stance I do.

You haven't given any yet. What's so bad about a CR 21-26 range, going from slightly better than a balor to equivalent to a great wyrm red dragon? I think that'd be ridiculous, but at least it wouldn't blatantly contradict the average stats in the MM. And it'd still be appropriate for non-epic games.

Or they could have included a few demon-weakening artifacts, allowing sub-epic campaigns to confront still higher-level foes.

That's free thinking.

 

[Shade]

When did Planescape canon become D&D canon? For that matter, when did D&D get a canon?

When it went into print in an official product and wasn't refuted by a later product.

D&D has always had canon. Without it, we'd have no commonality between our campaigns and experiences. Illithids, rust monsters, Bigby, fireball...it's all canon, and is what defines D&D.

 

[heirodule]

I don't know if anyone has made this kind of point yet, so I'll make it.

It seems to me that the issue where background on the demons says they've kicked out deities, or they rule 1000s of demons, but, if CR 22, can be easily beaten by a few hundred demons they rule, or clearly, beaten by dieties could be addressed thusly:

outsiders have a seperate power rating for abilities they have that are a reflection of their status as metaphysical entities that distinguish between their physical(and magical etc) power and their 'psychic/mythopoeic/deific power')

A demon lord doesn't rule 1000 demons because he can hit better than them or has more HP. He has some hold over them that is UNRELATED to that, and that aspect of their power is sublimated in the game rules which focus on PCs doing things with them.

A king can rule a kingdom without having to beat everyone in the kingdom.

And demon lords should be able to kick our dieties by powers that are on a different 'plane' of reality than the 'mundane' reality of hitting with swords, spells, etc. It would be best if all this was quantifyable in a game sense. It might be best to put in terms of another game entirely

When the PCs fight the devil, you use D&D rules. When the demons fight the devils, use Chess to resolve the fight.

 

[Uder]

When it went into print in an official product and wasn't refuted by a later product.

D&D has always had canon. Without it, we'd have no commonality between our campaigns and experiences. Illithids, rust monsters, Bigby, fireball...it's all canon, and is what defines D&D.

Maybe I'm not clear exactly on what canon means then. I'm talking about backstory, and D&D does not have one. Or rather it shouldn't, especially not Planescape's in any case.

 

[GVDammerung]

There is more to D&D than just the RAW. There is a mythology spread throughout the D&D rules that many enjoy following. Part of that mythology is demons as uber-villains. If the stats belie or call this into question, as they are part of the reading, that undercuts the mythology, particularly if there is no in game reason given for the change. The uber is no longer so uber and with no explaination within the game, even if there is a purely rules explaination. The end result is less pleasure in the mythology. The approach taken in depowering the demons as it has been thus far explained is rules centered and ignores what many find adds to the D&D experience as much - considering and interacting with the mythology in more than a casual way that considers only the RAW. To paraphrase, for me, "Its the mythology, stupid!"

 

[Uder]

It seems to me that the issue where background on the demons says they've kicked out deities, or they rule 1000s of demons, but, if CR 22, can be easily beaten by a few hundred demons they rule, or clearly, beaten by dieties...

Taking your quote out of context here, sorry... but it seems to me that the issue is people are taking this Spelljammer/Planescape idea that everyone's campaign exists in some unified metacampaign way too far.

These were marketing decisions made by TSR, and they have no place in the game.

When I run Planescape, there's a prime plane called Greyhawk you can go to. Yet, when I run Greyhawk, there's no such thing as Sigil and Oerth truly is the center of the universe... and when I run a homebrew there usually isn't even a Blood War or discrete CE/LE divisions between fiends. I've yet to have a brain explode at my table.

 

[Psion]

It's not the "free thinking" I have a problem with. I'm fine with the idea that those demons who kill their lords become them - that's kind of a cool idea.

What I object to is trying to use that idea as a justification for making an Abyssal lord less powerful than the guy he used to be before his transformation.

A true free thinker wouldn't bind his awesome idea to something so nonsensical.

That it's nonsensical is entirely your determination. Someone else might like something different.

I'm surprised at you. You once created a website devoted to improving fiends,

Heh. There's a blast from the past. But no reason to be surprised, really. It shows I thought tweaking demons to your taste had merit from a young age.

Looking back I found this quip from my old website interesting.

Paragon fiends tend to be planar lords or gods in thier own rights, though that doesn't mean it can't happen (a villain I made before the advent of High Level Campaigns was a demigod--the cambion offspring of Grazzt called "Paralite"; he was essentially a cambion paragon.)

Over in the other thread, someone was incredulous about the idea of 60 HD balors that would challenge Demon lords. Here you can see that I batted around the idea of demons that had not diverged significantly from their base species being effectively abyssal lords a long time ago.

so I know you don't like the new ultrawimpy models any more than I do. So why waste so much personal time and effort defending an idea you don't even like?

Because I feel that more of the audience is served better that way, and tweaking demon lords to the power level I feel appropriate to them is not objectionable to me.

But I feel like I am repeating myself.

It is that simple. A product that's not directly compatible with the core books is less usable than one that's compatible. They could move everything up by 2 CR without hurting the Epic-is-bad crowd one bit.

I could see increasing the CRs by 2 as a starting point. But I certainly don't see it as anything to get upset about. My versions are going to be a lot more than 2 higher. And if someone else has a use for demon lords with CR < 20, good for them.

That's not what's happening, though.

Our stances differ there, then. I have seen people call it "offensive" and "wrong." I've seen people fixate on the fact that the CRs weren't where they wanted them, despite the fact they are scalable.

You haven't given any yet.

Oh come now. We've batted this back and forth for a few posts. You may not agree with my positions, but to imply that I have not offered any is... well let's just say I'm too baffled by such an assertion to be incensed about it.

What's so bad about a CR 21-26 range, going from slightly better than a balor to equivalent to a great wyrm red dragon?

Nothing. But as they have given you the tools to scale it (I'll decide when I get the book if they are adequate tools), I am not precisely seeing the problem. If that's where I want the CR of the demon lords, that's where I'll put it. Someone who wants to run the demon lord as a final challenge for their 20 level campaign might not put it there.

 

[Shade]

Maybe I'm not clear exactly on what canon means then. I'm talking about backstory, and D&D does not have one. Or rather it shouldn't, especially not Planescape's in any case.

Perhaps GVDammerung's term of "mythology" better serves this idea. D&D has always had a backstory. The demon princes have always fought each other. Tiamat has always opposed Bahamut. Mind flayers have always been the ones who enslaved the gith, who became the githyanki and githzerai. Without this mythology, D&D might as well just have monster books with random tables to roll on until you have the right collection of stats and abilities to challenge your party, and you provide all the flavor.

 

[Uder]

The approach taken in depowering the demons as it has been thus far explained is rules centered and ignores what many find adds to the D&D experience as much - considering and interacting with the mythology in more than a casual way that considers only the RAW.

It's a good counter to the way 2e overpowered some of the best monsters in the game to the point where they were no longer useful... outside of the part of the game that takes place on a comfy armchair. They took the critters from those of us who play the game and gave them to the people who read the game.

We want them back, and it looks like we got them.

 

[Uder]

Perhaps GVDammerung's term of "mythology" better serves this idea. D&D has always had a backstory. The demon princes have always fought each other. Tiamat has always opposed Bahamut. Mind flayers have always been the ones who enslaved the gith, who became the githyanki and githzerai. Without this mythology, D&D might as well just have monster books with random tables to roll on until you have the right collection of stats and abilities to challenge your party, and you provide all the flavor.

Those are all great ideas to be used at the DM's discretion. Especially the random table one.