There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[Anthtriel]

Demons and devils are by definition bad guys through and through, which bugs me because I prefer evil that is either more subtle (such as the machinations of a noble in court) or more complex (such as the enigmatic philosophies of a dragon). I also find the demonic focus a bit of a shame because the near-removal of the alignment system helps loosen up the black and white morality that has dominated the D&D game for so long. But then when you introduce creatures that are definitively evil and make them a huge focus on the setting, then it goes back to being straight out black and white morality.

I agree that we probably won't see "good" devils, and certainly no "good" demons, but given that warlocks and tieflings are in (even somewhat too prominently displayed perhaps), it's certaintly seems possible to play a good fiendish-powered character consorting with devils and demons, making consorting with them a lot more acceptable, so there is some added grey from that angle.

Also, I have not seen any more nice red dragons than nice devils.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The existence of characters with demonic blood does not equate to an emphasis on evil PCs.

Looking at my comics collection, I see Ghost Rider, Son of Satan and Satanna, all of whom had demonic blood or origins and all of whom were heroes.

You missed two HUGE ones:

Spawn and Hellboy!

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I am no evil fanboi and usually find DMing evilly aligned groups boring as they IME seem to be nothing more than vehicles for the player's worst power fantasies twisted wish fulfillments. I know its a fantasy role-playing game but IME the fantasies of most in regards to what their "evil" character should be like seem very banal and trite. In 24yrs I have only had one campaign of evilly aligned PCs that was a pleasure to run. I stopped several other campaigns because I just tired of the nonsense.

I am in favor of a much darker D&D assumed world, a world more akin to the dark-ages where folks were ignorant and fearful, where there are fewer cosmopolitan hubs of jaded cynics who have seen it all and where drow, fiend-blooded humans, extra-planar travelers, etc won't get a reaction. I want to see a world where there are terrible things in the great forests that explain why, when fantasy worlds have often had civilization far longer than the real world, mankind and allied races haven't subdued everything. I want to see a world where if you leave the roads, you should be afraid. I want to see more moral ambiguity so that when the good guys do something really "good" it stands out...the heroes aren't just like every other Tom, Dick and Harry...they stand out for more than just how many monsters than can kill or how good there stats are.

In other words I want the D&D presumed setting to be a place that needs HEROES and not just a place that seems to breed mercenary adventurers that are nothing more than glorified grave-robbers.

A darker, more fearful, more ignorant, less sophisticated world will provide this. I never DM in the world of D&D (the assumed world) and instead hombrew or use settings that I enjoy but the atmosphere set forth in the core non-setting setting will influence the assumptions of the game as a whole. A darker world is a world that needs heroes and this IMO is a good direction for D&D as a whole.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Driddle]

Does anyone else feel that 4e may be putting too much of an emphasis on evil ... ?

Hey now! No need to bring WoW into this conversation, too.*




((*comment so ridiculously over the top that no one should even consider taking it seriously))

 

[Derren]

Whether those characters will be conflicted, brooding, or tempted by things like devil-offered power or demonic blood, or stand as examples of the incorruptible honor, shining as beacons of hope in a dark land, is a matter of taste; both possibilities offer tremendous dramatic potential.

I don't know if it is the current political situation or just a normal "coolness cycle" but I have the impression that the concept of "fighting evil with evil" is currently on the rise and that also influences the current 4E design.

 

[Wormwood]

I'd like to thank WotC for bringing the METAL to the table.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Yet here our PCs deck themselves out in the accouterments of devil worship and call upon the powers of hellfire...to help save peasant villages from trolls? Wait-a-minute, shouldn't these guys be the ones the PCs are killing, not the PCs themselves? I understand that there is more than one way to play the game, but IMHO there's a difference between a player deciding that he's going to use his roguish skills, strong sword-arm, or study of wizardry for evil, and a guy who only has powers *because* he made a pact with an evil entity or worships one.

I, for one, think it's a much harder thing for a person to use evil to do good than for someone to be a paladin. Paladins know that when they die, they go on to blissful eternity in Elysium or Mount Celestia or wherever. The Infernal Pact Warlock type that uses his powers for good *knows* that because of what he's done he's going to Hell when he dies, no matter how many good and noble things he accomplishes, yet he still uses his powers for the betterment of civilized races everywhere. I'd go further and say that the afore mentioned Warlock is *more* of a hero because he damned himself to save the world.

tl;dr - It takes bigger stones to save the world at the cost of your eternal soul than it does to save the world by being Lawful Good.

-TRRW

 

[LostSoul]

I always got the impression that D&D was supposed to at least make an attempt at heroic themes, of saving the world from the forces of darkness.

I always thought that one of the themes of D&D was the horrible random cruelty of the universe. And there's nothing you can do about it!

eg. "You touch the statue? Make a save vs. Poison. Oh, you're dead."

 

[Toryx]

I think the OP has brought up some valid concerns. Especially considering WotC's obvious desire to bring more people into the hobby by targeting at younger people, it seems rather risky to be putting demonic people on the covers of their new books. Given the increasingly christian fervor of the U.S. public, that seems a bit risky.

On the other hand, from a marketing perspective they're definitely targetting the audience pretty well. After all, Saw III opened a few weeks ago in movie theaters to huge success. Horror and violence is selling better today than ever and it's predominantly the younger generation who is the target audience for that sort of thing. This may well be a counter-reaction to the growing religious influence in the U.S., for all I know.

From a social perspective, I can also see why the Tiefling and Warlock have been chosen for the PHB. As others have mentioned, the sullen outsider is very popular in today's society, and no wonder. The nature of good and evil is very much a part of the post 9/11 world, and particularly the struggle between the two. I think shades of gray are becoming ever more apparent in the contrast of these events and it makes sense that people would want to roleplay that struggle because it's a way to deal with the things that are actually going on around us.

I don't think that 4th ed is really going to be generating more predominately evil parties, nor do I think it's going to built for that sort of gameplay. Instead, I think it's going to attempt to encapsulate the inner battle of good vs. evil as much as the outer one. The traditional Tiefling Warlock character is a perfect setting for this internal struggle that can reflect the outside Points of Light in Darkness world.

I do rather worry, however, that there will be some public backlash to this new direction WotC is taking.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I'd like to thank WotC for bringing the METAL to the table.

I would also like a little electric jazz fusion.