D&D 5E Hezrou demon redesign

[Chaosmancer]

@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.

A good point, I'm pretty bad about getting focused on an aspect or detail of a discussion and following that far off the beaten path.

 

[Helldritch]

Well, Hezrou and demons are part of the D&D scene since the beginning (almost) of the RPG.
In 1ed All demons could cast darkness, teleport w/o error and possessed Infravision and some kind of gating ability. The Hezrou could also cast Cause Fear, Levitate, Telekinesis and Detect Invisible. Originally, they did not possess the stench ability, this came in the second edition.

5ed is a blend between the 4ed and 5ed with a bit of previous editions mixed in. The idea was to remake a 1ed with a modern approach. So in a sense, they hit the target right on, most of the times.

I do like the idea of the Miasma you introduced. The role of the Hezrou, however, was not originally as a sergent but as a front line soldier reveling in carnage and blood shed. This sergeant thing, again, was introduced in later edition (2ed if I remember correctly). The abyss has no need of a sergeant, the abyss wants bloodshed, carnage and destruction. So your Miasma in my eyes, is the only thing that should be added/modified to give the Hezrou some more punch.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, Hezrou and demons are part of the D&D scene since the beginning (almost) of the RPG.
In 1ed All demons could cast darkness, teleport w/o error and possessed Infravision and some kind of gating ability. The Hezrou could also cast Cause Fear, Levitate, Telekinesis and Detect Invisible. Originally, they did not possess the stench ability, this came in the second edition.

5ed is a blend between the 4ed and 5ed with a bit of previous editions mixed in. The idea was to remake a 1ed with a modern approach. So in a sense, they hit the target right on, most of the times.

I think looking back to the original version of a D&D monster and using that original design as the only guiding light for how to make the best & truest version of that monster is misguided.

As I pointed out in my OP, the 1e traits you describe are not driving factors of unique monster design, rather they were endemic to many demons:

• Darkness & teleport & infravision & gating (many 1e demons can do these)
• fear (so can 1e’s balor glabrezu, nalfeshnee, and marilith)
• levitate (so can 1e’s glabrezu)
• telekinesis (so can both 1e’s glabrezu, nalfeshnee, and vrock)
• detect invisible objects (so can 1e’s balor, marilith, and vrock)

While it's critical to understand the essence/roots/creative origins of a monster – and sometimes that's harder than it sounds! – D&D is a progression of design and lore. Yes, there's plenty of debate about specific decisions, but the big picture is that the authors/designers add layers of lore across various supplements and editions. If there is a spirit to 5e it is inclusivity, both of the broad player base and also the broad swath of past lore.

I do like the idea of the Miasma you introduced. The role of the Hezrou, however, was not originally as a sergent but as a front line soldier reveling in carnage and blood shed. This sergeant thing, again, was introduced in later edition (2ed if I remember correctly). The abyss has no need of a sergeant, the abyss wants bloodshed, carnage and destruction. So your Miasma in my eyes, is the only thing that should be added/modified to give the Hezrou some more punch.

Again, I urge caution with putting "the original" on a pedestal... In fact, the original OD&D hezrou had no role. It was just a demon, like any other. Phrases like "foot soldier" or "sergeant" or "torturer" or any other kind of descriptive role are wholly absent from the original demons. Instead, there was a physical description and list of powers. That's it. No ecology. No culture. No roles to speak of.

Type II: The next most common type of demon, these foul creatures are a foot shorter than the tall Type I sort, looking somewhat like a gross toad with human arms in place of forelegs. Magic resistance is 55%, and intelligence is only fair. These demons can be struck by normal weapons or missiles. The darkness they cause at will is of the variety which covers a 15' radius. These sorts of additional abilities can be performed by these demons, one at a time, at will: Cause fear (as a fear wand), levitate (as an 8th level magic-user), detect invisible objects, telekinese 3,000 gold piece weight, gate in another Type II demon (20% chance of success).

So, yes, the Abyss may want bloodshed and carnage. But that should not preclude making each demon interesting both narratively and mechanically (in a way that wasn't done in their original incarnations).


There's a comment that Esper makes in this video about hezrou being "demonic fart ogres", and as ridiculous as it sounds, it's not far off the mark. He does a good job of underscoring the hezrou's narrative and mechanical lameness. Certainly, a weak dretch or manes doesn't need a bunch of story, but when you're dealing with an intelligent CR 8 monster on the order of a Drow Priestess of Lolth, a Githzerai Knight, a Mind Flayer Arcanist, or a Young Green Dragon, that sort of thin design no longer works (IMO, of course).

 

[LordEntrails]

Demons need horns. What a demon without horns? Just some evil abomination, not a demon.

(And devils need tails!)

 

[Helldritch]

I think looking back to the original version of a D&D monster and using that original design as the only guiding light for how to make the best & truest version of that monster is misguided.

As I pointed out in my OP, the 1e traits you describe are not driving factors of unique monster design, rather they were endemic to many demons:

• Darkness & teleport & infravision & gating (many 1e demons can do these)
• fear (so can 1e’s balor glabrezu, nalfeshnee, and marilith)
• levitate (so can 1e’s glabrezu)
• telekinesis (so can both 1e’s glabrezu, nalfeshnee, and vrock)
• detect invisible objects (so can 1e’s balor, marilith, and vrock)

While it's critical to understand the essence/roots/creative origins of a monster – and sometimes that's harder than it sounds! – D&D is a progression of design and lore. Yes, there's plenty of debate about specific decisions, but the big picture is that the authors/designers add layers of lore across various supplements and editions. If there is a spirit to 5e it is inclusivity, both of the broad player base and also the broad swath of past lore.

Yep, and sometimes, it is also important to understand why some changes were made. Some were made to compete with other RPG where monsters were heavy in lore whereas D&D was relatively light on lore and it was a weakness that nitpickers were using against D&D to call it the most basic of RPG... That is when the Bloodwar came into being something and the name change (Tanar'ri? don't have my books with me...). But originally, demons had no drive but chaos and destruction (and bloodshed... did I mentioned it?).

Is it a bad thing to have added background and roles to many monsters throughout the editions? Most of the time I would say no. It is quite the contrary. This has enable D&D to survive up to today. The lore added was important for everyone, including me.

But in the case of demons, It's not so clear cut. Demons are machines of chaos and evil. They are the epitome of chaotic evil. They fight among themselves, against the devil and whatever else comes in their way. That is why the Devils are winning battles against demons. They have a chain of command. They are very coordinated. The battles the demons win are because of their sheer numbers. So putting sergeants and generals in the demon's rank is not really something that I can readily accept. (I did not in 2ed, 3.xed and 4ed.)

On the Demon princes, Balors, Marilith and Nalfeshnee (read here the most intelligent of demons) I can accept a higher level of thought process. They can plan (if they can resist their urges) and they will. But they have to impose their will on the lesser demons. Remember that demons will not gang up on a demon prince. Their very nature prevents them from uniting. They will obey out of fear. That is why the Nabassau are relatively safe from the princes. But even they will bow to their better.

Again, I urge caution with putting "the original" on a pedestal... In fact, the original OD&D hezrou had no role. It was just a demon, like any other. Phrases like "foot soldier" or "sergeant" or "torturer" or any other kind of descriptive role are wholly absent from the original demons. Instead, there was a physical description and list of powers. That's it. No ecology. No culture. No roles to speak of.

And As I said above, for the demons, I think that the philosophy of the 1ed was right on spot. Maybe introducing demodands into the abyssal hordes might work for the roles of sergeants. Farastu, Shator (shatagor?) and Kelubar have their origin in Tarterus. If I recall correctly, they travel freely between Hades, Tarterus and the Abyss. These could be the demons (demodand) that Demonic Princes would use for their war and enlistment efforts. Yuggoloth (Daemons in 1ed) could still fill their role as mercenaries. Hell would have nothing to do with the chaotic evil demodands. So they might be a good pick up.

 

[dave2008]

...But originally, demons had no drive but chaos and destruction (and bloodshed... did I mentioned it?).

Actually I just reviewed the 1e MM1 MM2 and in neither demon entry (they are virtually the same BTW) do they mention demons being engines of destruction and bloodshed. That is you adding lore that wasn't their. This is a mention about the less intelligent ones attacking "without question," but that is a far cry from universal engines of destruction and bloodshed IMO.

...Demons are machines of chaos and evil. They are the epitome of chaotic evil. They fight among themselves, against the devil and whatever else comes in their way.... The battles the demons win are because of their sheer numbers...

Again, that is not something that is actually presented in the original demon "lore," anything of that nature was later, or made up by you.

So putting sergeants and generals in the demon's rank is not really something that I can readily accept. (I did not in 2ed, 3.xed and 4ed.)

It is hard to accept things when they go against what you made up.

 

[Quickleaf]

But in the case of demons, It's not so clear cut. Demons are machines of chaos and evil. They are the epitome of chaotic evil. They fight among themselves, against the devil and whatever else comes in their way. That is why the Devils are winning battles against demons. They have a chain of command. They are very coordinated. The battles the demons win are because of their sheer numbers. So putting sergeants and generals in the demon's rank is not really something that I can readily accept. (I did not in 2ed, 3.xed and 4ed.)

Gotcha. I see the core of your complaint has to do with the militaristic hierarchy implications around using a word like "sergeant."

That was not my intent, rather I was using an existing word from past lore about the hezrou as a common language. You could swap in "small group boss, press-ganger, and terrorizer" instead of "sergeant" and it would do just as well to convey what demonic "leadership" might look like.

 

[Helldritch]

Reread the third paragraph of the demons in MM 1ed.
"The less intelligent will attack without question and fight until slain."

This means that a demon will attack until it dies. Put a demon into town, it will attack everything, every one it can get its claws on and will kill that unfortunate soul. It will go from one victim to the next, careless of its own protection and safety. The fact that a demon can not be slain outside of its home plane works only on "greater" demons. All other demons don't care at all. They just revel in the carnage.

"No demon can ever be subdued"
Again, the book doesn't say carnage, destruction and blood shed. But couple this with the quote above and you get pretty much no surrender, destroy/kill everything you can.

Third paragraph
"Demons never willingly serve anyone. If forced to serve with magic or threat they will continually try to find a way to slay their master/captor"

Again, a normal creature would try to flee from its captor/master. They could try to kill but their main goal will be to flee. Not the demons. They will try to find a way to kill.

On demon's amulet...
"The demon will do the utmost to slay and carry all that remains to the abyss. ie: The character is lost forever."

Again, the demons holding an amulet will go to extreme length to go a step beyond simply killing. It will also ensure that the puny mortal will never be raised. It should be noted too that all demons (not only the owner of the amulet) will try to kill a character (or any mortal) holding such an amulet.

Here is a not so uncommon scenario: A fool summons a type V (marilith) and holds her amulet. The fool fails at controlling her so she gates a type II (Hezrou). Together they kill the fool. Do they go? Nope they stay and start to try to kill as much people as possible. The Hezrou might also try to summon another Hezrou (nothing prevented that in 1ed, leading to a chain of summoning as long as the rolls were successful...). Each demon would try to kill as much mortals as possible before either dying or being banned to their home plane. The marilith would fight as long as possible then would escape to the abyss with the remains of her would be captor.

Demons also roam the Etheral and Astral in search of victims....

Sometimes, a thing might not be explicitly named to be implied. If the above are not reasons enough to justify the carnage, bloodshed and destruction, nothing ever will.

Edit: Bolded the quotation for an easier read.

 

[Helldritch]

Gotcha. I see the core of your complaint has to do with the militaristic hierarchy implications around using a word like "sergeant."

That was not my intent, rather I was using an existing word from past lore about the hezrou as a common language. You could swap in "small group boss, press-ganger, and terrorizer" instead of "sergeant" and it would do just as well to convey what demonic "leadership" might look like.

Yep, I give you that one fair and square.

 

[dave2008]

Here is a not so uncommon scenario: A fool summons a type V (marilith) and holds her amulet.

That would be exceptionally uncommon, perhaps impossible, as only demon lords and princes have amulets.

EDIT: Read the MM1 again it doesn't quite say that. It says:

Which lead me to believe it was just demon lords and princes, but then it says:

so I guess any demon can have one?

Sometimes, a thing might not be explicitly named to be implied. If the above are not reasons enough to justify the carnage, bloodshed and destruction, nothing ever will.

Yes, but since it is only implied, those implications can be interpreted differently. I disagree that it couldn't be more clear, they could simply state: Demons want nothing more than carnage, destruction, and bloodshed. Heck, I think they basically did that in 4e. Which I actually liked as is gave demons a clear difference from devils for the first time, for me at least.