Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Demons, Devils, and Officiality in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="el-remmen" data-source="post: 8609200" data-attributes="member: 11"><p>So in <em>Dragon Magazine</em> #163 (November 1990) the editorial staff decided to print a handful of letters they thought were humorous and responded to them in a glib and off-hand way (while kindly maintaining the anonymity of the letter writers to save their dignity), which I stumbled upon in my ongoing browsing of my collection of mags from back in the day. One example in particular stood out to me:</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]155571[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>What struck me about this letter and its response, is that the editor decided to leverage the removal of demons and devils from AD&D with the advent of the second edition (a removal that would end up being temporary, since within a year or so they'd be put back in with different names) as a simultaneously joking and "official" response. Of course, this has the effect of completely dismissing the potentially discomforting subject the letter writer is inquiring about for guidance, which I guess I can understand (but then why publish it except to lightly mock someone for making use of what had been an "official" part of the game only a year or so earlier - and would be again in less than a year). The entry for Alu-Demon in the 1E <em>Monster Manual II </em>explicitly says it is the product of a mortal human and a succubus. And while the succubus entry does not specifically list seduction as a tactic for corruption, their description as tall beautiful woman, with the drawing of a one being totally naked and voluptuous, and the general legends of what succubi do, does reinforce a sense of how they can be put to use in a campaign. (On the other hand, stopping dungeon exploration to sleep with a random demon woman, regardless of the rules' suggestions, seems like an odd choice).</p><p></p><p>Anyway, his got me thinking about the letter writer and many D&D players' need for an official rule or response for the questions that come up in their games and the dissonance that occurs between what is happening at a particular table and how the game evolves and changes in printed materials and various editions, and the sense that the "official" game should cater to what is already happening. It also got me thinking about the opposite position, that old stuff should be dropped as the new iterations come to be the "standard" way of playing.</p><p></p><p>The main reason why this is fascinating to me is that for a long time now "officiality," whether it be about some silly or puerile edge case that comes up or some core rule or inclusion of some feature or monster, has not been a concern of mine as a D&D player or DM. For example, I never cared if TSR officially had demons and devils in the game or what they were called. If I wanted them in my game, they were in there (and honestly, how often did demons and devils come up? Personally, I can think of fewer than five times such creatures have appeared in my games in 39 years of playing - though obviously my game is not everyone else's game and in some they appear a lot more frequently.</p><p></p><p>But, I am a firm believer that what is published by whatever company happens to own the D&D license is just one iteration of a much larger hobby and tradition called Dungeons & Dragons.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I am not so sure I have a specific question about this, but thought it might be interesting to discuss (sans edition warring) how 5E and/or previous editions encourages (or not) this desire for officiality and what your personal take on such questions might be. (Plus I just wanted to share a funny letter)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="el-remmen, post: 8609200, member: 11"] So in [I]Dragon Magazine[/I] #163 (November 1990) the editorial staff decided to print a handful of letters they thought were humorous and responded to them in a glib and off-hand way (while kindly maintaining the anonymity of the letter writers to save their dignity), which I stumbled upon in my ongoing browsing of my collection of mags from back in the day. One example in particular stood out to me: [CENTER][ATTACH type="full" width="747px" alt="letter.jpg"]155571[/ATTACH][/CENTER] What struck me about this letter and its response, is that the editor decided to leverage the removal of demons and devils from AD&D with the advent of the second edition (a removal that would end up being temporary, since within a year or so they'd be put back in with different names) as a simultaneously joking and "official" response. Of course, this has the effect of completely dismissing the potentially discomforting subject the letter writer is inquiring about for guidance, which I guess I can understand (but then why publish it except to lightly mock someone for making use of what had been an "official" part of the game only a year or so earlier - and would be again in less than a year). The entry for Alu-Demon in the 1E [I]Monster Manual II [/I]explicitly says it is the product of a mortal human and a succubus. And while the succubus entry does not specifically list seduction as a tactic for corruption, their description as tall beautiful woman, with the drawing of a one being totally naked and voluptuous, and the general legends of what succubi do, does reinforce a sense of how they can be put to use in a campaign. (On the other hand, stopping dungeon exploration to sleep with a random demon woman, regardless of the rules' suggestions, seems like an odd choice). Anyway, his got me thinking about the letter writer and many D&D players' need for an official rule or response for the questions that come up in their games and the dissonance that occurs between what is happening at a particular table and how the game evolves and changes in printed materials and various editions, and the sense that the "official" game should cater to what is already happening. It also got me thinking about the opposite position, that old stuff should be dropped as the new iterations come to be the "standard" way of playing. The main reason why this is fascinating to me is that for a long time now "officiality," whether it be about some silly or puerile edge case that comes up or some core rule or inclusion of some feature or monster, has not been a concern of mine as a D&D player or DM. For example, I never cared if TSR officially had demons and devils in the game or what they were called. If I wanted them in my game, they were in there (and honestly, how often did demons and devils come up? Personally, I can think of fewer than five times such creatures have appeared in my games in 39 years of playing - though obviously my game is not everyone else's game and in some they appear a lot more frequently. But, I am a firm believer that what is published by whatever company happens to own the D&D license is just one iteration of a much larger hobby and tradition called Dungeons & Dragons. Anyway, I am not so sure I have a specific question about this, but thought it might be interesting to discuss (sans edition warring) how 5E and/or previous editions encourages (or not) this desire for officiality and what your personal take on such questions might be. (Plus I just wanted to share a funny letter) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Demons, Devils, and Officiality in D&D
Top