D&D 5E Hezrou demon redesign

[dave2008]

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?"

I like this idea, but I also like the idea of random tables. So now that I've slept on it, ideally I would have:

1. "Standard" demons as described in their stat blocks
2. A large table of modifications to represent variation from the standard
   1. Or possibly a table of modifications by demon type?
3. Numerous smaller tables of modifications to represent warping by a particular demon lord.

Option one would be for ease, but most demons should have option 2 or 3 or both applied.

 

[Quickleaf]

@dave2008 We have #1 in the MM and we have examples of #3 in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes with Demonic Boons by demon lord, a few optional extra powers for select demon types (balor, goristro, marilith, nalfeshness), demonic cambions, and Demon Customization Tables (specifically d20 Unusual Demon Features). What would be an example of #2?

 

[Quickleaf]

Looking at these 6 artistically, you can hardly blame anyone for confusing them. Before I started this topic I would have confused a few. And this isn't even including the grung or grippli!

The hezrou is the oldest of the bunch, however unlike all the others from this selection, it lacks any defining froggy features justifying a froggish appearance.

1. Hydroloth/Hydrodaemon: This yugoloth has the most striking artistic similarity to #3 (Hezrou), yet it has key froggy features that #3 lacks: it's Amphibious (inhabiting the River Styx) and has Watery Advantage. It dates back to 1e's Monster Manual II.

2. Banderhobb: Introduced in 4e's Monster Manual III, this monster from the Shadowfell is a faerie tale boogeyman which leans on these froggy feature: it's stealthy with Shadow Stealth, it has a big mouth to swallow you with, and a tongue to reel you in.

3. Hezrou: This demon traces back to the OD&D's Eldritch Wizardry as a Type II demon, but unlike every other monster in this selection it lacks any defining froggy traits in either its stat block or the rest of its monster entry.

4. Froghemoth: Introduced in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, this alien monster has multiple froggy traits, including: it's Amphibious, it has rubbery skin manifested as lightning resistance and Shock Susceptibility, it has a big mouth to swallow you with, and a tongue to reel you in. With a distinctive triple-eye stalk and tentacles, it earns its name.

5. (Green) Slaad: First appearing in the 1e Fiend Folio, these extraplanar monsters from Limbo have one froggy trait: they undergo a birthing process which involves evolution from a (horrific) tadpole to an adult. They're more like xenomorphs than frogs, and their stats otherwise don't evoke frogishness (e.g. they could just as easily be drawn as green, red, or blue wolverines and their stats would the same), but at least they have the tadpole biological process as explanation for their froggish appearance.

6. Bullywug: The only monster native to the Material Plane among this selection, bullywugs were introduced in the 1e Fiend Folio. They possess the following froggy traits: they are Amphibious, they Speak with Frogs and Toads, they are stealthy with Swamp Camouflage, and they can perform a Standing Leap. Known for riding giant frogs/toads, they earn their place among the most "froggy" of the frog monsters.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

To answer your familiar question, the type (celestial, fey, or fiend) is not a question of stats/mechanics but of story/narrative. In particular, when a master gives a familiar a command, unless the command is exhaustively specific there is bound to be latitude in how the familiar carries out that command. I interpret its type (celestial, fey, or fiend) to dictate how it interprets that latitude.

A Celestial familiar is going to use that latitude to act towards the greatest good, even if that means frustrating its master's selfish tendencies or taking longer than expected. However, it will never go so far as to use that latitude to cause harm to its master. In the long run, it's looking to uplift its master's spirit even if that means putting him or her through some tough spots.

A Fey familiar is going to use that latitude to be tricksy, make mischief, and create complications, usually for its master's enemies, but sometimes for its master him or herself. Its long run goals may be a mystery or involve amoral objectives specific to the campaign.

A Fiendish familiar is going to use that latitude to seek out the "lightning path" (i.e. fastest and dirtiest) to power for its master and itself, even if that means creatively interpreting what's best for its master. In the long run, sure it's looking to to claim its master's soul, but it's going to offer the best cookies along the way and make sure the track is greased for its master's rise to power.

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008 We have #1 in the MM and we have examples of #3 in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes with Demonic Boons by demon lord, a few optional extra powers for select demon types (balor, goristro, marilith, nalfeshness), demonic cambions, and Demon Customization Tables (specifically d20 Unusual Demon Features). What would be an example of #2?

I think the demon customization tables are a general #2. The demonic boons are a type of #3, but I was thinking more along the lines of the demon customization table, but for each demon lord. That being said, with the MM & MToF you have a good start to providing customized demons in the manner I was suggesting.

I guess I need to review MToF more. To be honest I was a bit ticked they didn't take the opportunity to improve the demon lord designs. The designs of the archdevils in MToF and Bel in Descent are definitely superior to the demon lords.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To answer your familiar question, the type (celestial, fey, or fiend) is not a question of stats/mechanics but of story/narrative. In particular, when a master gives a familiar a command, unless the command is exhaustively specific there is bound to be latitude in how the familiar carries out that command. I interpret its type (celestial, fey, or fiend) to dictate how it interprets that latitude.

A Celestial familiar is going to use that latitude to act towards the greatest good, even if that means frustrating its master's selfish tendencies or taking longer than expected. However, it will never go so far as to use that latitude to cause harm to its master. In the long run, it's looking to uplift its master's spirit even if that means putting him or her through some tough spots.

A Fey familiar is going to use that latitude to be tricksy, make mischief, and create complications, usually for its master's enemies, but sometimes for its master him or herself. Its long run goals may be a mystery or involve amoral objectives specific to the campaign.

A Fiendish familiar is going to use that latitude to seek out the "lightning path" (i.e. fastest and dirtiest) to power for its master and itself, even if that means creatively interpreting what's best for its master. In the long run, sure it's looking to to claim its master's soul, but it's going to offer the best cookies along the way and make sure the track is greased for its master's rise to power.

I think I get what you are saying, it is a matter of the familiar's personality and how they will act in regards to their Master's orders.

However, with the mechanics of the familiar spell as is, and people able to choose their familiar's shape every time... why pick the Fiend? It will choose the "fastest" way to interpret your orders, but it will cost you your soul if you stick with it until you die. And the familiar can't offer the master anything they do not already have.

Familiar's offer no additional knowledge or power, just scouting capabilities and the ability to remotely cast some spells. I acknowledge that in the world they might be able to do more, but this isn't backed by what we see in the game, which leads to the questions. If the celestial familiar will never cause you harm, and offers every single benefit of the fiendish familiar who might cause you harm and will try and take your soul.... why do you pick the fiends? The familiar's "increased speed" on their tasks just is not worth it, especially since wizard's are scienc-y types who would know that rushing their work is dangerous.

Again, I like the idea of the "corrupted familiar" being the origin of the demon. I want to use it, I'm just trying to figure out how to square the circles we have to make it less hand-wavy.

 

[dave2008]

Again, I like the idea of the "corrupted familiar" being the origin of the demon. I want to use it, I'm just trying to figure out how to square the circles we have to make it less hand-wavy.

I think you need some homebrew mechanics to go with that homebrew lore to make it work.

 

[Quickleaf]

@Chaosmancer Oh gosh, several ways you could go narratively. Why would a wizard select a fiendish familiar whose ultimate aim is to drag his soul to the Abyss?

• Maybe the wizard doesn't know/isn't aware of his familiar's true purpose.
• Maybe the wizard doesn't care about his soul, and is only concerned with here and now.
• Maybe the wizard views it as an acceptable price, a la "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven", or a necessary price given the challenges he faces, a la Constantine.
• Maybe the wizard thinks he's more clever than the measly familiar and will outsmart it, gaining all the benefit with none of the cost.
• Maybe the wizard believes it's a case of "better my devil, than it serving someone else who's truly wicked."

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think you need some homebrew mechanics to go with that homebrew lore to make it work.

Quite likely.

@Chaosmancer Oh gosh, several ways you could go narratively. Why would a wizard select a fiendish familiar whose ultimate aim is to drag his soul to the Abyss?

• Maybe the wizard doesn't know/isn't aware of his familiar's true purpose.
• Maybe the wizard doesn't care about his soul, and is only concerned with here and now.
• Maybe the wizard views it as an acceptable price, a la "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven", or a necessary price given the challenges he faces, a la Constantine.
• Maybe the wizard thinks he's more clever than the measly familiar and will outsmart it, gaining all the benefit with none of the cost.
• Maybe the wizard believes it's a case of "better my devil, than it serving someone else who's truly wicked."

A lot of these kind of paint the wizard as... stupid.

A) Not aware of how magic works or how dangerous fiends are? I know fiends technically fall under the purview of religion instead of arcana, but not knowing that in summoning a fiend you are risking dangerous forces seems more ignorant than I would expect. Especially since Find Familiar is a 1st level spell, this is basic magic we are talking about , so I would expect wizards to learn the nuances of it rather quickly.

B) Two issues. One is that "I want a familiar who is sloppy and dangerous, but will act quickly" is again just poor decision making. Two, even if they do, they can dismiss the familiar and summon a celestial familiar later. Which raises all sorts of questions about how much sway the demon familiar will have over their soul, and also makes one wonder why a wizard would keep it around after an accident or two.

2B) I want to side bar here to point out, that familiar stats are generally thought to come from the animals you summon. Meaning all of them have sub-human scores. The Frog would have an intelligence of 1 and a Charisma of 3, leading to hefty penalties on things like tricking their master or convincing their master to take a certain course of action.

3) Sure, works for some wizards. Except, the benefit they are potentially losing their soul for is "works faster but is sloppy." You'd have to be stupid to take what is overall a neutral aspect and add to it the potential for the servant to betray you and drag you to everlasting torment. I mean, imagine you are working in the food industry. Do you keep the employee who is potentially stealing from the register because he works fast, even though that means he sometimes messes up orders or breaks plates, costing you even more money. OR do you take the employee who works a little slower, is completely trustworthy, and always does a good job? This isn't a choice. You always want the second employ. They cost you less and are a better employee.

4) This can work, especially since as mentioned, most familiars are stupid and uncharismatic. I could see incredibly prideful wizards taking on fiendish familiars just to prove that they can handle it and that even with a poor familiar than can do better than their fellows.

5) This makes no sense. Better to summon a devil to serve than to summon a celestial who will work with me, because then I won't be serving a really evil master? That makes zero sense unless the wizard is just resigned to having their soul taken to the Abyss no matter what they do in their life. Which, could be a fun plot for a single character, one who is marked for the Abyss and figures raising their eventual master rather than risking a roll of the dice is worth it, but that is a hyper-specific story.

And again, I think the pattern emerging here is "sloppy but faster work" when the familiar does so little is a bad exchange. You aren't really gaining anything except your orders being accomplished moderately faster, so you might be saving a handful of seconds at the risk of your soul? That makes no sense.

 

[Quickleaf]

@Chaosmancer Well, I'd prefer the conversation not to get off track from what I started this thread to discuss. I'm going to request that you if want to discuss the merits of familiar types, that you please start your own thread and pick it up there.

EDIT: Sorry, I had to help my girlfriend unload some things and my posting was interrupted. I think your basic question has merit: "Why would a spellcaster take on a fiendish familiar, knowing it was evil?"

However, I think that question applies universally across D&D and is not particularly more relevant to the discussion of the hezrou-as-black-magic-familiar than it is to many other parts of D&D. It's a question I think mandates a wider audience and more inquiry than I can accommodate.

By comparison, it would be like having a conversation about redesigning the rust monster, and then getting sidetracked in a debate about which weapons/armor components would be made of metal. Sure, it's tangentially relevant. However, the debate about metal weapons/armor applies to far more situations than just rust monsters – heat metal, whether it can be used to block certain divination spells like detect evil and good, magnetism & lodestones, druid prohibitions, certain oozes which either do or do not corrode metals, world-building and technology levels, etc.