D&D 5E Hezrou demon redesign

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) The first edition monster manual introduced us to 'Type 1' through 'Type VIII' demons. There are several aspects of this presentation where I think the ultimate intention was lost, and where I also think Gygax thought better of his original design. The first thing that I think was lost, was Gygax never intended the demons to be hierarchical, with Type 1 being the weakest and ascending to stronger and stronger types. A careful reading of the 1e AD&D stats does not show a linear progression in power from Type 1 to Type 8. There is an overall progression, but some lower numbered types have more HD or other superior abilities to higher numbered types. The further we've gotten from the original MM, the more hierarchy has been introduced. And the second thing that I think was lost was that I don't think Gygax really intended any particular type to be numerous and pervasive. Each type was I think intended to represent a relatively small number of individuals, many of which would be named. I think he intended there to be an infinite number of types, which by now might be publishing type 60's or type 90's with the clear indication that there were many more types not yet described.

By the time the DMG was written, I think Gygax had hit upon a better scheme than publishing stat blocks for demons, and that appeared along with several other ideas that he'd hit upon between writing the MM and the DMG, in the Appendixes. In the Appendix, he presents a template for generating a very large number of random fiendish beasties, and I think that and not what we ended up with, is what should have been the model for future demons. (snip)

1. The 1E Monster Manual included type I to type VI demons; there were no type VII or type VIII demons (except perhaps in Arduin Grimoire?).
2. Type I-VI demons were actually introduced in OD&D's Eldritch Wizardry.
3. On the contrary, it is clear that Gygax (well, as clear as anything could be with Gygax who loved the non sequitur school of game "design") did mean for there to be a demonic hierarchy as evidenced by the rankings of same from type I to type VI. Further, the hit dice issue is not as clear cut as the 1E Monster Manual would have you believe because, if you go back to the Eldritch Wizardry source, Gygax intended for the type IV and type VI demons to have lower hit dice but those hit dice being a higher value. (Demogorgon and Orcus were also noted as using the higher hit die value.) Why did he do this? Who really knows. I just assume it was yet another non sequitur that he never had time to develop or explain and that his editor was told to ignore.
4. I seem to recall that the random tables in the DMG were first published in The Dragon (as it was). I've gone through Dragondex and some of PDFs but cannot find if my memory is faulty or not. It would be interesting to read the commentary that goes with the introduction of these tables to see if there was any underlying logic or if it was just something interesting to publish. I tend to agree that a creature type that is supposed to be the exemplar of chaotic evil should be a lot more chaotic than its carefully structured hierarchy of power would otherwise lead us to believe. Monster Manual II's hordelings/hordlings were actually a much better representation of chaotic evil paragons than Gygax's demons (despite being, IIRC, neutral evil).

 

[Quickleaf]

@Scrivener of Doom I did a bit of digging. Appendix L: RANDOM GENERATION of CREATURES FROM THE LOWER PLANES appeared in the original 1979 AD&D DMG.

There was, immediately preceding its release, an article in The Dragon #23 (March 1979) by Gygax entitled RANDOM GENERATION OF CREATURES FROM THE LOWER PLANES. It's worth clarifying that this was intended to be used for all fiends, not just demons of the Abyss.

It appears to be pretty much the same content, with the following introduction / note:

When I read Gregory Rihn’s “Demonology Made Easy” in TD 20 it got me to thinking, and I immediately re-read Jon Pickens’ article on random demons (TD 13). Population of the many planes of AD&D will be a problem in the future; most of the monsters now available are designed for the Prime Material world, and when play moves to the various planes, DMs are going to be very busy trying to come up with the creatures who inhabit these strange places. As some start has been made on the lower planes, I thought it would be most helpful to offer a system to aid in the development of more such monsters, for that would help round out those areas rather than sketch in small parts of others. What follows is the current “official” approach, and what you read here will be included in the forth coming DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. My thanks to both Greg and Jon!

Gygax seemed to be anticipating D&D shifting toward more planar adventures, and that the burden of creating monsters to inhabit these places would fall on the DM. The design ethos appears to be: We can't possibly account for the wide diversity of extraplanar monsters, so here's some tables to procedurally generate your own in a myriad of forms.

I tracked down Jon Picken's article in The Dragon #13 (April 1978) D&D OPTION: DEMON GENERATION. The table of contents has interesting italicized text next to the article name: fooling players who’ve memorized G, D-G & H. From the introduction / note to the one-page article:

There is no reason why demons in D&D must be limited to the types described in Eldritch Wizardry. If those nasties only whetted your appetite for more, the following guidelines can be used to generate an unlimited variety of new demons to plague your players.

Unlike Gygax, Pickens does seem to be referring to "demons" in the 5e demons vs. devils sense. However, his design ethos is uncertain... it could be simple old school adversarial DMing ("Aha! You thought it was such-and-such, but you should be careful what DM books you memorize, because it's actually so-and-so!"). Whereas Gygax focused mostly on generating a fiend's appearance (as well as some special attacks/defenses), Pickens focused entirely on generating a demon's powers (and assumed the DM would creatively interpret with an eye toward coming up with an appearance matching its power).

The other article he mentions has a fun little title: DEMONOLOGY MADE EASY; or, How To Deal With Orcus For Fun and Profit by Gregory Rihn. It appears in The Dragon #20 (November 1978).

One thing that becomes clear is that Rihn is using "demon" here not in the modern D&D sense as distinct from a "devil", but instead exactly like 5e's "fiend" type. For instance, he mentions Asmodeus and Baal in the same breath as Demogorgon, Orcus, and Yeenoghu. This article is about fiend summoning, binding, pact-making, and exorcism.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ah, just found out that in 5e they're playing with artistically re-skinning various demons to match the demon lord they serve. This is from the Descent into Avernus Dice and Miscellany set – the balor, barlgura, hezrou, and quasit serving Yeenoghu are given gnollish forms.

This is a nice mid-way ground between infinitely customizable tables & hard-codified hierarchical types.

The hezrou here abandons the toad demon appearance, but maintains the hunched over position & spines down its back. And it's easy to imagine it fulfilling the functions of its stats – claw/claw/bite and stench.

I'm interested in what you think this implies from a world-building perspective. The 5e MM says: "The Abyss creates demons as extensions of itself, spontaneously forming fiends out of filth and carnage." As well as:
"By expending considerable magical power, demon lords can raise lesser demons into greater forms, though such promotions never stem from a demon's deeds or accomplishments. Rather, a demon lord might warp a manes into a quasit when it needs an invisible spy, or turn an army of dretches into hezrous when marching against a rival lord. Demon lords only rarely elevate demons to the highest ranks, fearful of inadvertently creating rivals to their own power."

Are all demons in service to a demon lord warped to a form suiting their master? This doubles back into what @dave2008 you were asking, which was essentially "At what point is a hezrou no longer a hezrou?"

 

[Quickleaf]

Thought this might be an interesting visual comparison highlighting overlap of the "frog monster" design space across 6 classic D&D monsters... Can you tell which is which?

 

[Celebrim]

Hmmm... without research:

1) Hydradaemon
2) ??? (No idea)
3) Red Slaad (Could be Hezrou)
4) Froghemoth
5) Bullywog?
6) Grippli? (Could be the Bullywog)

 

[generic]

Without research, I can name them as the following:

1. Hydroloth

2. Banderhobb

3. Hezrou

4. Frogemoth

5. Green Slaad

6. Bullywug.

Of course, I only know this because of the obscene amount of time I've spent reading my 5E handbooks.

 

[the Jester]

And the second thing that I think was lost was that I don't think Gygax really intended any particular type to be numerous and pervasive. Each type was I think intended to represent a relatively small number of individuals, many of which would be named.

The 1e DMG explains that there are only six type VI demons- what we now know as balors- and gives their names.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Without research, I can name them as the following:

1. Hydraloth

2. Banderhobb

3. Hezrou

4. Frogemoth

5. Green Slaad

6. Bullywug.

Of course, I only know this because of the obscene amount of time I've spent reading my 5E handbooks.

These are my answers, for the same reason.

I also want to say @Quickleaf that I'm kind of liking the plague and miasma idea you had going with the redesign, as well as a potential grapple to keep things in the miasma.

The Familiar stuff was incredibly interesting, but I have a but. Most Wizards would create their familiars via Find Familiar, Now, per RAW of the spell, familiars don't have any special stats, and while they are Fey, Fiend or Celestial, why would someone choose a Fiendish familiar? At the table it is for aesthetic reasons, but in-universe, we would need a reason to pick them, especially if fiendish familiars have a habit of destroying their creators.


It is still awesome lore, just looking one step further to think about actually getting it to slot into the game. This thread has at least made me think of redesigning demons more around natural disasters and affecting the area. Summon them to cause plagues, storms, ect.

 

[Wiseblood]

Tucker’s Hezrou....shudder.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

D&D has always been crowded with Frog and Toad creatures. I have just learned to live with it.