How important are demons/devils to D&D?

[Desdichado]

As someone who was running a campaign featuring devils as the primary antagonist during the changeover between 1e and 2e... yeah, they most definitely were removed. We got a non-apology for it in Dragon. It was almost two years until they caved and put out the Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium.

I'll take your word for it; I wasn't playing D&D already by the time 1e changed to 2e. I do know, however, that the Monstrous Manual that I looked at (likely a later printing) had them renamed. I also know that probably more was written about the fiends in 2e than at any time before or since. And that a lot of the really iconic fiendish moments in D&D were in "classic" 2e adventures; Dead Gods, March of the Modrons, etc.

Maybe it was really Planescape that brought fiends back after generic 2e took them out, but they certainly had an extremely strong presence in 2e nonetheless.

I find demons problimatic at two levels. First, since D&D from the beginning went heavily into crypto-Christian, Christian inspired occultism for its inspiration, it just cuts too near to many peoples real world beliefs.

Indeed; that was fundamentally the excuse that BADD and whatnot used to fuel their anti-D&D campaign. Not to mention what tons of preachers, pastors and other religious leaders have said about it over the years as well, especially during the heyday of the 80s.

It's hard to say that that's problematic, though, as it's fundamentally part of what launched D&D into the popularity that it enjoyed. Many of us wouldn't be playing D&D and may not even have ever heard of it if it wasn't for the fiends in the Monster Manual, and the counter-reaction to them. Blackleaf's Legacy, if you will.

Secondly, the entire concept to me risks deprotagonizing the game world and everything in it. If demons, why not angels? Why are demons priviledged to directly intervene and wage war if the forces of good are not? Surely the forces of CG are no easier to control than the forces of CE? Why only invasions from the Abyss? Why don't you encounter celestials as often as infernals? And if the servants of the gods, then why not the gods themselves? And if that, why are living humans particularly important, since the upper and lower planes could presumably sweep away mortal forces without much of a thought? The answers in my opinion are primarily gamist. So what I basically suggest is for the most part, living mortals are on their own. Whether you ar good or evil, you can't expect consistant support from the outer planes except where it has been strictly defined (as per spells, for example). If you want to take over the world and bathe it in blood, you got to do it yourself. Likewise, if you want to save the world, for the most part you are the one that will have to do the rescuing.

I think that's a rather uncharitable, IMO, and certainly false assumption that folks can only figure out something gamist to do with a bunch of mechanics for some cool, evil monsters. I don't need saving from this quandry you've devised, because this slippery slope logical model you've developed its based on a number of assumptions that simply don't have to be true, and nothing in the official rules or whatever dictates that it must exist, or even suggests it, really. Demon and devil stats are in the monster books because they're cool creatures to fight in game, just like everything else in the books. What to do with them, if anything, is (as always) up to the GM. Only some products, and then usually very specific to a certain campaign setting, have provided very much in the way of "ecology" of the fiends, or attempted to place them in the world. They're just monsters, like all the rest in the MM, and they can be used however you like, because almost everything in the MM is just about how they act in combat.

In my campaigns, fiends are (relatively) common either because they've 1) defeated their angelic opposition and caused them to retreat from the mortal world, 2) are invited by the power-hungry, or 3) just because that's how outsiders are in my campaigns. We call them demons, but hey, if we knew angels, we wouldn't like them any better. They're outsiders. The concerns of mortals are of no consequence to them. Maybe that's more amoral and indifferent rather than "evil" when you get right down to it, but from our perspective, it's awfully hard to tell the difference.

Of course, I downplay alignment in my games quite a bit too. Alignment has had various iterations through the years, from the Law-Neutral-Chaos of early editions, the nine point alignment of AD&D through 3e, the fuzzy alignment of Eberron, and the five point alignment of 4e. Alignment seems less like a fundamental part of D&D given the very different interpretations of it over the years than fiends do.

 

[BronzeDragon]

Tanar'ri, Baatezu and Yugoloths were always very important for my games, even when I wasn't DMing Planescape.

The only campaigns where they didn't feature heavily were those with good consistency reasons for them not to be present, like Dark Sun (with little to no contact with the planes) and Birthright (where I thought they would detract from the prominence of the Awnsheghs).

Always some of the favorite "we love to hate them" monsters.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that's a rather uncharitable, IMO...

Oh?

...and certainly false assumption that folks can only figure out something gamist to do with a bunch of mechanics for some cool, evil monsters.

Oh?

Demon and devil stats are in the monster books because they're cool creatures to fight in game, just like everything else in the books.

Oh. For a second there I thought you were disagreeing with me.

Of course, I downplay alignment in my games quite a bit too. Alignment has had various iterations through the years, from the Law-Neutral-Chaos of early editions, the nine point alignment of AD&D through 3e, the fuzzy alignment of Eberron, and the five point alignment of 4e. Alignment seems less like a fundamental part of D&D given the very different interpretations of it over the years than fiends do.

And here I thought your argument was based around the idea that fiends had all sorts of different interpretations.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh?

Oh?

Oh. For a second there I thought you were disagreeing with me.

Yes, yes, and yes, I am.

And here I thought your argument was based around the idea that fiends had all sorts of different interpretations.

No, it's not. Do you want me to re-summarize it for you? The fiends have no interpretation consistent with what you described, except under the aegis of certain campaign settings. All of those problems that you listed about using fiends? You made all those problems up. Tell me where in the Monster Manual (of any edition) those problems are enumerated. It's not there.

The solution to the problem isn't in the various interpretations; it's merely your own hardly universal interpretation that creates the problem in the first place.

 

[pawsplay]

I started with Basic D&D, and no demon or devil appears until you get to the Immortals set in that series. They just weren't a part of my early experiences. Once I realized they were in AD&D, I became fascinated, and I wondered why the Basic game had to be, in my view then, namby-pamby about evil. At some point as I was introduced to AD&D and dabbled in it, I felt a sense of relief. I remember hearing rumors that TSR had plans to release a module in which you literally took on Satan... I thought the idea was outrageous, perhaps even silly, but it appealed to my sense that at some level, D&D was too far removed from real moral concerns. I won't traipse too lightly on ENWorld's politics and religion policies, so I'll just summarize my viewpoint as being confused that people could believe in literal moral evil, including Satan, and then exclude the concept entirely from their gaming.

Once I left for college, I mostly walked away from AD&D in favor of Torg, GURPS, Vampire, etc. However, I got dragged into a game now and then. In re-experiencing the game, I realized something: Demons and devils are very cool, archetypally, but it's actually pretty hard to shoehorn in a literal Hell for the souls of the damned in a world with nine alignments, numerous planes of existence, false gods, real gods, angels, and everything else. The Hell of Abrahamic religions just doesn't exist in Howard, or Leiber, or Vance. Actually, Palladium's demons and devils as interdimensional ravagers, metaphysically and really evil but inscrutable in their cosmic purpose, reads a lot closer to me to the proper treatment for a swords-and-sorcery world. Certainly, Moorcock's powers of Order could be of great benefit and defense to humanity against raw chaos, but they weren't good in some absolute sense. If you look at the BECMI rules, that treatment of demons and devils is much closer to the Palladium version. Demons are immortals of Entropy and their servants. Devils (diabolai) are simply extradimensional humanoids who, though terrifying and strange to humans, are more simply inimical and perhaps misunderstood than actually evil.

I find the approaches taken in classic Forgotten Realms, as well as the versions set forth in the Fiendish Codices to be fascinating and appealing, but as they stand, not ideal for many campaign concepts. Certainly, they would be odd, in a Dantean role, in my current campaign, which uses the Greek pantheon as its principal deities. Instead, I use them more like the BECMI versions, and in some cases, make them the dominant race in certain otherwordly realms, such as Hades or hostile demiplanes.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I definitely agree that demons and devils are iconic and deserve as much space is devoted to them in the various Monster Manuals in which they've appeared. With that said, I also historically haven't used them very much because, for myself, I often have trouble figuring out why they're there. Most of my games involve exploration and political intrigue without a whole lot of Ultimate Evil from Beyond, so mostly I've used them as summoned or bound monsters without a lot of significance beyond that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This, of course, assumes a Gygaxian or Moorcockian cosmos of 'equal and opposite'. Worlds where good and evil act differently--where the powers of good have more respect for human free will and don't believe in solving mortals' problems for them, but only give them the tools they need to move the world--have less of a problem.

In Moorcock's books, while Law and Chaos are equal in terms of the overall big picture, the cosmic balance swings back and forth. Sometimes Law is in the ascendancy, sometimes Chaos. The Eternal Champion books are most commonly set during periods in which Chaos is on the rise and the forces of Law are weak.

Something similar could explain why the PCs encounter demons, but not angels - Evil is waxing, Good is on the wane.

EDIT: In the Books of Corum, Lord Arkyn, a god of Law, can manifest and give advice to the hero, but can't act. That's a good model for roleplaying, it's want you want from the good guy NPCs. They're quest givers, but not quest solvers.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I've used demons and devils far more often in my campaigns than I've used dragons.

I think D&D's are essential to D&D.

 

[billd91]

There are some specific demons, devils, and other infernal outsiders that may be dispensible - styx devils, chain devils, pretty much any daemon/yugoloth (though the nycadaemon and mezzodaemon fit a certain nostalgic niche for me), demodands, retrievers, bebilith, for example - but the demon and devil groups as a whole are pretty darn iconic.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I suppose they didn't really appear in D&D at all until the Eldritch Wizardry Supplement introduced demons type I-VI ?

In my 3e campaign they were significant but very much outsiders - They could only come to the prime material plane if summoned, and were often summoned by evil guys for getting their plans going. In one 3.0e campaign an evil wizard had summoned a devil (for its infinite Animate Dead capability) and was busy depopulating villages to create an army of zombies. In a separate adventure a devil had managed to get free on the prime material, and although it couldn't bring any of its buddies across it was getting busy creating half-fiendish offspring (think "Alien" for more information about how this worked out for the donor of the other half).

I preferred the 3.0 demons and devils to the 3.5 ones, and 3.5 to 4e; I like my fiends to have lots of capabilities so that I can use them in more ways than just one kind of combat threat.

So, for me they were never major campaign foes, but were always there as allies to evil forces.