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

[Coriat]

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

It's not entirely his determination. How the heck are CR 19-23 demon lords supposed to do the sort of things that they have been shown to do in Dnd - compete with gods, rule lesser demons through might and physical intimidation, and survive countless eons in the most violent plane in the multiverse? Please give me an answer to that.

 

[Shade]

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

Sure the DM can use anything he wants at his discretion. He can give a wizard fighter bonus feats at every level if he wants, but that doesn't refute the need for a common ground in the flavor and rules for the game to maintain some sort of cohesive whole.

If the 3E Monster Manual had changed the illithids to lawful good protectors of forests, and said that the gith were spawned by legal battles with the modrons, you wouldn't have been a little upset?

 

[Shemeska]

Never heard of this. Chapter and verse, please.

Others already gave references to the other point that I raised, as all of it was firmly established in the planar mythology. The point about the fiends forcing the deities to collectively withdraw from active involvement in the Blood War, I don't believe anyone referenced yet, so I'll provide.

'Hellbound: The Blood War' - see 'The Dark of the War - A DM's Guide' page 13

It's a very good book, one of the better 2e ones, and the most detailed look at the topic in print.

 

[Ripzerai]

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

But they'd be wrong. I say that not out of arrogance, but this argument has gone on for quite some time now and no one's managed to say why it isn't nonsensical as it is.

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.

I don't have a problem with that. Even Planescape had some Abyssal layers ruled by balors, and I think characters like Red Shroud or the Marquisse of Sorrow ought to be nearly lordly in power. Some nonunique rulers might even be stronger than some unique ones.

But the iconic rulers of the Abyss - Demogorgon, Orcus, and Graz'zt as the greatest three - they ought to be special.

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.

I don't remember any complaints about the Book of Vile Darkness archfiends being too strong. This is a new-coined issue, a problem created where none existed before. Nobody would mind if the demon lords were all CR 21+, and a lot of bitterness would be mollified. That's why I'm so bewildered at the intensity of the opposition here. Juiblex at CR 21? How outrageous! That would make him useless in my game!

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.

You've said a lot of stuff, but you haven't offered any reason for making them less or equal in power to balors other than "It can be rationalized, it can be scaled, I don't see what the big deal is."

It's not a big deal, it can be scaled, and it can possibly even be rationalized (anything's possible). That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it's something that's necessary to serve the broadest possible audience. It actually unnecessarily narrows the audience. Add four hit dice to every demon ruler and not only would the "Epic Go Home" group still be content, but a lot of other people would be happier as well.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

No one is preventing you from ignoring the development of a common and underlying DnD mythology. If you'd like to plug your ears, hum to yourself and chant that Planescape doesn't exist, go ahead if that's your thing. But regardless, for the rest of the world, and for DnD itself, that material forms the gaming equivalent of DnD's pre-3e planar Septuagint.

If it vexes you so much that DnD has expanded and further detailed a lot of things over time, then go ahead and exclude it entirely from your own games and stick with what bits you like, I won't push congressional legislation to prevent you from doing so, but keep in mind that it does exist as a majority of the base material defining all things planar and fiendish in DnD.

 

[Uder]

No one is preventing you from ignoring the development of a common and underlying DnD mythology. If you'd like to plug your ears, hum to yourself and chant that Planescape doesn't exist, go ahead if that's your thing. But regardless, for the rest of the world, and for DnD itself, that material forms the gaming equivalent of DnD's pre-3e planar Septuagint.

If it vexes you so much that DnD has expanded and further detailed a lot of things since its early years, then go ahead and exclude it entirely from your own games, I won't push congressional legislation to prevent you from doing so, but keep in mind that it does exist as a majority of the base material defining all things planar and fiendish in DnD.

Condescend much?

 

[GVDammerung]

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.

They are more than mere "ideas." They, and similar story elements, motivate much of the enjoyment of the game.

When githyanki hates githzerai and githzerai hates githyanki and both hate mindflayers, who hate them back, it is the D&D follow on to elves disliking dwarves, dwarves disliking elves and both hating orcs, who hate then back. I doubt anyone can reasonably say that fantasy is not richer for the latter and I posit D&D is richer for both.

Its not just the RAW. D&D has its own mythology. This is perhaps easiest to see in monster entries that give more than just stats (we could add PrC descriptions in 3.5 certainly). If it was just the RAW, monsters would need little more than stats. They have more and all those little bits of extraneous information in the descriptions, along with more fullsome discussions of similar "fluff" elsewhere create a D&D mythology that adds greatly to the appeal of the game.

That Grazzt, Orcus and Demogorgon are not drinking buddies is important and matters to many players, who would be nonplussed at the least if suddenly those three were revealed as drinking buddies. By the same token, when these three are described as powerful but then revealed to have stats that do not comport with these descriptions, there is some understandable and well taken consternation, particularly when no in game explanation is offered, only a RAW explaination.

Uder, you sell the game short.

 

[Uder]

Sure the DM can use anything he wants at his discretion. He can give a wizard fighter bonus feats at every level if he wants, but that doesn't refute the need for a common ground in the flavor and rules for the game to maintain some sort of cohesive whole.

If the 3E Monster Manual had changed the illithids to lawful good protectors of forests, and said that the gith were spawned by legal battles with the modrons, you wouldn't have been a little upset?

There is no need for the game to have a cohesive back story. That's what campaign settings and creative DMs are there for.

Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.

 

[Shade]

There is no need for the game to have a cohesive back story. That's what campaign settings and creative DMs are there for.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd never have gotten sucked into this game if the core rulebooks hadn't presented such a rich mythology/backstory.

Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.

They did have a "kickable" status in their BoVD/Demonomicon forms, but still made sense as the rulers of their plane. They weren't exactly easy pickings in 1E, and they definitely could take a balor (or type VI demon, if you prefer).

 

[Ripzerai]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd never have gotten sucked into this game if the core rulebooks hadn't presented such a rich mythology/backstory.

Yes! You and GV Dammerung are right, of course. The rules themselves aren't going to attract new players. Nobody says, "I really love D&D because it's so much fun to add bonuses to a d20 roll." They like the fantasy of it, and the rules serve that.

A creative DM can indeed create his own fantastic backstory, but that only goes as far as that DM. A communal story attracts fans to the game in general, not just the one group.