Retcon the dumb "Faction War" and bring back the FULL on Blood War?

[Doug McCrae]

I'm still not seeing Ari's view of what fiends should be like. All I'm really getting from his explanation is that fiends should be nothing more than a tool for some hack-n-slash.

I mean really, you guys are throwing around the term "humanizing", but then you follow it up with, "they should scheme and plot against mortals". If they are beyond caring about territory in the lower planes, and they are so supernatural that they don't care about emotional pleasures such as love, lust, or racial hatred, then why would they care about plotting & scheming against mortals? That sure seems just as humanizing to me. What makes that any different? I must have drank too much last night while playing Modern Warfare 2 for too long, cause I'm just not getting your guys viewpoint on this

It's pretty simple. Have a look at how supernatural evil has mostly been portrayed in folklore and other fiction from medieval times to the present. For example - The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus or The Exorcist. Do we get an insight into why the Devil or Pazuzu act the way they do? No.

I have to admit there's good fiction which does examine Satan's motives - for example Milton's Paradise Lost and Michael Moorcock's The Warhound & The World's Pain. Sympathy for the Devil, if you will. But such fiction is atypical.

The Exorcist probably provides the best model for how to treat fiends in D&D - an implacable, powerful, incomprehensible, supernatural foe. One contends with such a foe, sometimes they can be beaten in a physical fight, but it's never easy. Overcoming a demon isn't like fighting four orcs in a room - they're too potent, magical and intelligent to be so easily defeated. Perhaps you need a magical weapon, as in The Omen. Perhaps they can only be driven off, not permanently killed.

But even if you defeat them, you never get an insight into why they do what they do. They are Evil. It's entirely appropriate that, if anything is Evil with a capital E, it should be demons. Comprehensible, sympathetic evil is for creatures of this world - men and man-like things. Thieves, assassins, cruel despots, fanatical cultists. You can understand their motives. Even drow are more understandable than demons - although they come from a strange, alien place, at least it's part of the same plane of existence.

 

[malraux]

If they are beyond caring about territory in the lower planes, and they are so supernatural that they don't care about emotional pleasures such as love, lust, or racial hatred, then why would they care about plotting & scheming against mortals? That sure seems just as humanizing to me. What makes that any different? I must have drank too much last night while playing Modern Warfare 2 for too long, cause I'm just not getting your guys viewpoint on this

Because scheming against mortals and doing evil is just what they are. They don't have a reason other than that is what they are. Do modrons have a reason for being orderly? No, being orderly for its own sake is what they are.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

That said, I'm quite keen on the idea of citadels lining the borders of Hell, and the metal-album imagery that comes of the battles that would be had there. But I'd just as soon muck around with civil wars in Hell, or having the forces of Heaven be the attackers.

It's how I always saw it, and it what was mentioned but never actually focused on. There were paragraphs about how the armies of heaven did attack every once in a while, sometimes against one army, or when both armies were destroying each other.

 

[Imaro]

I'm still not seeing Ari's view of what fiends should be like. All I'm really getting from his explanation is that fiends should be nothing more than a tool for some hack-n-slash.

I mean really, you guys are throwing around the term "humanizing", but then you follow it up with, "they should scheme and plot against mortals". If they are beyond caring about territory in the lower planes, and they are so supernatural that they don't care about emotional pleasures such as love, lust, or racial hatred, then why would they care about plotting & scheming against mortals? That sure seems just as humanizing to me. What makes that any different? I must have drank too much last night while playing Modern Warfare 2 for too long, cause I'm just not getting your guys viewpoint on this

I'm going to back you up here and say I don't think I'm getting it either. I think Ari is saying fiends are "supernatural forces" sort of like elementals or something, and that they do evil because they are evil... like how a fire burns things because... fires burn things. If so all I can say is bleh... humanize my fiends then. I do evil because I'm EVIL, has to be one of the most boring and simplistic motivations ever.

If we're talking iconic and all... well I'm sorry but the iconic fiend, Lucifer, isn't (by most accounts) going around doing evil just because he's... EVIL. He usually has motivations that are, when examined closely, surprisingly human-like. Even the more modern and interesting takes on him in shows such as Supernatural and Lost (ok maybe the black smoke monster isn't the devil... but he's close enough.) humanize him... and I think ultimately are better for it.

Note: If I am interpreting what Ari and others are saying about fiends incorrectly, I apologize and the above can be disregarded.

 

[Mouseferatu]

All I'm really getting from his explanation is that fiends should be nothing more than a tool for some hack-n-slash.

Oryan, don't take this personally, but...

I really wish people would stop doing this. This is the second or third time in this thread that someone has brought up hack-n-slash/combat-only vs. RP/world-building-and-storytelling, and while I don't think it's necessary deliberate, it's a little dismissive. I'm not advocating for monsters that are good only for rolling dice without any deeper potential, and I'd like for people to stop assuming that I am.

If they are beyond caring about territory in the lower planes, and they are so supernatural that they don't care about emotional pleasures such as love, lust, or racial hatred, then why would they care about plotting & scheming against mortals?

First, you're taking something I said and extrapolating beyond what I meant. I didn't say fiends have no cares/emotions/pleasures. I said they don't have all the ones mortals do. They (at least some of them) are absolutely capable of lust or racial hatred. They're absolutely capable of greed, ambition, or pride. What they are not capable of is love, or true affection, or sympathy. Some might want territory as part of their schemes, most probably want power over other fiends--but (again, IMO), it's all ultimately about putting them in a better position to spread misery and death among mortals, corrupt and collect souls, and the like.

And yes, they enjoy doing it. Yes, they enjoy their schemes and their plots and their triumphs. Again, they're not emotionless; if anything, the emotions they do have are more extreme than mortals' are; they just don't have as many, and they're driven by an intrinsic evil nature.

Does it make sense to the mortal mind that they might care so much about corrupting mortals but not about other things? No; that's the point.

As far as that making them boring or "cardboard"--I guess we've reached the point where it's purely a matter of perspective and we're not going to convince each other. I've found that, by playing with the methods and the lesser motivations of fiends--do they corrupt via lust vs. pride vs. ambition; do they focus on mortals directly vs. trying to gain more power in Hell so they can send minions to focus on mortals; do they prefer more straightforward temptations vs. intricate plots that take decades but topple nations--I can get a more than satisfying amount of variation and depth out of them.

If that doesn't work for you, cool. Humanize the fiends to your heart's content. They're just not the fiends that I personally prefer in my games.

 

[Psion]

Oryan, don't take this personally, but...

I really wish people would stop doing this. This is the second or third time in this thread that someone has brought up hack-n-slash/combat-only vs. RP/world-building-and-storytelling, and while I don't think it's necessary deliberate, it's a little dismissive. I'm not advocating for monsters that are good only for rolling dice without any deeper potential, and I'd like for people to stop assuming that I am.

Now, now. I suspect you don't think that this fairly characterizes your preferences any more than this...

Humanize the fiends to your heart's content.

...fairly characterizes our preferences.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm going to back you up here and say I don't think I'm getting it either. I think Ari is saying fiends are "supernatural forces" sort of like elementals or something, and that they do evil because they are evil... like how a fire burns things because... fires burn things. If so all I can say is bleh... humanize my fiends then. I do evil because I'm EVIL, has to be one of the most boring and simplistic motivations ever.

.

But this angle actually makes them more simplistic...

You basically have turned them into a human "badguy" in terms of motivation. What makes using a devil different from say a high level spellcaster?

 

[Sammael]

The terms I would use for fiends in Planescape is not humanized; rather, I think they were made a bit too mundane and common - they became the elves and dwarves of regular D&D. I certainly don't think the Blood War is in any way a form of humanizing, since its origins are shrouded in mystery and its ultimate purpose - to prove that one form of evil is superior to all others - is just as fiendish as any other typical fiendish acts (corruption, destruction). It also carries with it the age-old truth that evil bears the seed of its own destruction.

 

[Oryan77]

I'm not advocating for monsters that are good only for rolling dice without any deeper potential, and I'd like for people to stop assuming that I am.

Ok, let's not start getting defensive and all that. It's turns of events like this that cause good threads like this to get locked 100% of the time here on ENworld. Let's keep the discussion focused on the topic rather than start throwing around accusations as if feelings are getting hurt.

I don't think anybody is trying to criticize how you use your fiends in your game. My statement about it being hack-n-slash is an honest question. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint and was wondering if you were referring to actually thinking they should be used as a 1-sided creature that shouldn't be for anything else besides PCs encountering them to kill.

When I'm reading my D&D books, I'm constantly looking for fluff that will help me improve monsters so I can roleplay them better & make them more interesting. So I buy all the Slayer's Guide books & whatever else I find that has monster fluff so I can learn more about a monster other than its stats. That's why I like the PS monster manuals, they had 2 pages worth of fluff, unlike the 3e & newer monster manuals with their 1 paragraph of fluff. So when I use these monsters, I can really spice up an encounter and make each encounter different. I find that these books also helped me make my fiends more interesting.

So when people are talking about not using these aspects for fiends, to me, it sounds like you're saying they should be dumbed down so they are not so complex. But it also sounds like you're saying that by dumbing them down, you're actually making them more complex. And I'm having a hard time getting an idea for how your versions of the fiends actually makes them more interesting. Because if I just used a fiend in the manner that you are talking about, it feels like my encounters would be less interesting since it would be so straight forward, "It's evil, chaotic, & just wants to kill; so attack it."

I sometimes feel that I'm not being "mystical" enough when running my Planescape game. I hope that my scenarios come off mystical to my players so they feel like they are not just playing a core D&D game. So if I can pull some ideas from you guys to make my fiends appear more mystical than just an evil human badguy, then I'd love it. But I'm not hearing anything that I feel will make my fiends more interesting. It actually seems like it would make them less interesting. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, but I wonder how your fiends are more interesting when you use them in your games.

I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding you guys correctly. There's been several attempts to explain it to me, but nothing has been very specific. People are throwing out names of authors & stories as examples, but not following up with any concrete examples that I can take and use to enrich my own fiends. I'm not hearing anything that is making me think, "Wow, I like that....that'll really make my fiends be more fantastic & mystical and not simply be an evil human." If anybody could be more specific, I'd appreciate it

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Agreed.

The Blood War served to add a Machiavellian element to the Lower Planes, with the backstabs, arms deals, etc, and it allowed the Forces of Good to show a more manipulative side, playing Hells vs. Abyss without needing to field armies of angels (that gets boring).

The Faction War only served to advance the setting's timeline, as if a campaign setting were a novel or comic book series. Campaign Settings should offer a status quo for you to mess with, not a story for you to follow.

1) I agree with others who note that the Fiends shouldn't be seen as mere "bad guys", but as EVIL, horrific "Satanic" terrifying, scary , mess your head, corrupt yer soul and a damn sight worse than even the drow!
When you mess with fiends, just getting killed can be the LEAST of yer worries.

we have the Far Realm/abberations for one form of horrific stuff, the Fiends are another, both are different, and within them, the illithids vs aboleths, devils vs demons conflicts make sense and add fun/fear/adventure possibilities!

So I agree the devious stuff the fiends get up to, and embroil mortals into, is great adventurign fun
g2) And heck yeah I HATE TSR and lesser extent WOTC, for repeatedly forcing a metapolt on us, to follow novels, that ruins a setting, to make us buy setting MKII...which is a pice of poo compared ot the original.
Dakr Sun 1 versus revised
Original forgotten realms boxed set versus the horrible quality 3rd boxed set.
Undermountain original was awesome, Undermountain 2 was lousy, but Return to Undermountain straight off ruined it all by killing Halaster at the start...WHAT THE HELL were they thinking?!