Demons, Devils and Celestials! Oh My!

[Gailbraithe]

Forked from: 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

- I liked the cosmology: the spheres (Entropy, Death, Life, etc.), the elemental planes, etc. It seems that the newer editions of the game are All About The Demons, but the old BECM rules barely even mention them. Nice and simple, just like I like it.

I never made this connection before reading CleverNickName's post, but this is something that really bugged me about 3E and will almost certainly bug me about 4E: demons. Everywhere!

I started playing BECMI, which has no demons. Or devils. Then I switched to 2E. Again, no demons or devils. They had the Tanari and Bazaatu (I'm probably mangling those names), but they weren't really played up outside of a few Planescape supplements. One hardly ever saw them, and I never once used any of them in my games.

Then I switched to 3.5, and there were a lot of demons. Especially in th OGL stuff. I mean goodness, I have endless legions of unique demons at my fingertips.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I was wondering if anyone else is like me a Nick, and came up through BECMI and 2E and is a little "WTF?" about all the demons.

I find them very hard to incorporate into my games, simply because even though I'm playing Pathfinder these days, I'm essentially still running the Mystara campaign I started twenty years ago.

Also, speaking of BECMI, what the hell ever happened to the thoul? I miss thouls!

 

[Mouseferatu]

I notice that you skipped 1E in your "career path." 1E also had a lot of demons involved in various plots. The whole "baatezu/tanar'ri" thing only came about because of various religious groups complaining about the game even having demons and devils. (This was back in the "D&D IS SATANIC!!!!!eleven!!!" days.)

So in that respect, 3E was a return to 1E, not a new thing.

That said, though, I've never found it necessary to use them. If you don't like 'em, don't have them appear in your game. I'm not sure why it's any more complex than that. (That's not me dismissing your concerns; I honestly don't see it. If I'm missing something, by all means, explain it to me.)

 

[MerricB]

I don't know if demons will be everywhere in 4e, but I certainly felt they were everywhere in Paizo's Dungeon magazine. There's no doubt that the Paizo crew really love demons.

The trouble I faced is that I couldn't distinguish between devils and demons, certainly not in the way they were presented in adventures. (It is notable that the only book that really sets out a difference between the two sets of fiends is the second Fiendish Codex, which is not a Paizo production, unlike FC1).

Demons were the Drow of 3e - overexposed monsters!

Cheers!

 

[Gailbraithe]

I notice that you skipped 1E in your "career path." 1E also had a lot of demons involved in various plots. The whole "baatezu/tanar'ri" thing only came about because of various religious groups complaining about the game even having demons and devils. (This was back in the "D&D IS SATANIC!!!!!eleven!!!" days.)

Yeah, I started playing in 1986 with the Red Box, and graduated to 2E. I've never been able to stand 1E, which is -- IMO -- a really ugly looking confusing mess of a game.

So in that respect, 3E was a return to 1E, not a new thing.

Sure, sure. Not claiming otherwise. I'm just saying that because I missed 1E, I found the sudden abundance of demons rather puzzling.

That said, though, I've never found it necessary to use them. If you don't like 'em, don't have them appear in your game. I'm not sure why it's any more complex than that. (That's not me dismissing your concerns; I honestly don't see it. If I'm missing something, by all means, explain it to me.)

Oh it's not like that. I'm not complaining, I'm well aware of my ability to simply not use them (much like I don't use a lot of creatures), I was just wondering if anyone else had a similar experience as Nick and I.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, I started playing in 1986 with the Red Box, and graduated to 2E. I've never been able to stand 1E, which is -- IMO -- a really ugly looking confusing mess of a game.

Heh. I preferred 1E to 2E myself, but I certainly won't disagree that 1E was, um, uniquely organized.

Oh it's not like that. I'm not complaining, I'm well aware of my ability to simply not use them (much like I don't use a lot of creatures), I was just wondering if anyone else had a similar experience as Nick and I.

Fair enough.

 

[Delta]

Started with 1E; so my experience is opposite that of the OP. One of the most intriguing parts of OD&D & 1E were the demon entires (and ties to actual mythology). One of the biggest puzzles was to see their identities plastered-over and retconned in 2E (as the renamed-alien-monsters) or BXCMI (as immortals of the sphere of death).

Much more palatable for me to see them under their short, real-world name than under some made-up sci-fi jargon.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's predictable that it's gone that way. Angels and demons sell. Big time.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I'm a huge fan of demons & devils. I'm thrilled that 4E goes to great lengths to not only make them different from each other, but also make them abundant in adventures. I love the plethora of demons in Thunderspire Labyrinth!

Which reminds me... I need recommendations for Evistro miniatures! I'll start a new thread for that.

 

[AllisterH]

I think one reason why demons and devils are so prevalent is because they encompass such a wide range of levels but are tied together thematically, yet individual entries are sufficicently different.

Thus, you can have a long campaign arc involving demons and devils and be assured that your players don't get bored fighting the same monster.

 

[lutecius]

I never made this connection before reading CleverNickName's post, but this is something that really bugged me about 3E and will almost certainly bug me about 4E: demons. Everywhere!

Like others have said, demons are popular. They certainly were in AD&D1 and many players missed them at the beginning of AD&D2. Even when they came back with the silly names, many complained that dnd had given in to the religious crowd.

What bugs me in 4e isn’t demons & devils, there aren't that many in the MM, it’s the prevalence of the butt-ugly monsters. Aberrations, abominations, devourers, foulspawns, harbingers… most of the MM looks freshly escaped from hell or regurgitated by the abyss.
I get that monsters that are meant to be fought are more useful than the cutesy ones, but couldn’t angels have various alignments and still look like angels, not floating metal scraps?
Same for the fey. They could be mean and nasty without all looking like space aliens or yet another goblin type.

The trouble I faced is that I couldn't distinguish between devils and demons, certainly not in the way they were presented in adventures.

I still don’t see much difference in 4e. The balor still looks like a pit fiend and most demons look less like "corrupt elementals" than the new angels. I think they should have just merged devils and demons and be done with it.