Exactly, violence/killing for the sake of it (evil, just, ya know...because), and causing suffering for kicks.
D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Rosemary's Baby
- Thread starter Plaguescarred
- Start date
Exactly, violence/killing for the sake of it (evil, just, ya know...because), and causing suffering for kicks.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
If you water down Yugoloths any more, they'll be actual water. Cool story lines, but the monsters themselves are bland as anything.
Now having Succubi as a base form of Yugoloths, that I could get behind.
No they're not; they're actually more interesting than the other two, maybe you've not read enough literature on them.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Can we define literature that contains yugoloths? I've got a Kindle and some down time.
Can we define literature that contains yugoloths? I've got a Kindle and some down time.
Faces of Evil: The Fiends.
The Bloodwar.
The Planes of Conflict.
The Baernaloth is the one of the most creepy/disturbing creatures ever.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Oh, I thought you meant something else. I've read pretty much all the 2e Planescape material. Yea, Baernaloths are OK, behind-the-scenes ancient progenitor guys. I still find 'loths to be a mishmash of creatures that could have been demons without losing any thematic integrity. Although it's kind of hard to not have any creepy, weird looking extraplanar creature not fit into the demon category, which is just as much a problem with demons as anything else. They eat up too much archetype space.
Ah, I think they come off vastly different than devils and demons, I'll just agree to disagree.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
You're equating the playtest surveys with "online polls"? Come on now, that's not fair at all. Online polls suffer greatly from repeat voting by individuals to swing a poll result. The playtest is far less likely to suffer from that. The playtest also uses weighting data. It's a much more accurate method of collecting data, and that data shows what I mentioned earlier.
I'm failing to see why they couldn't choose to work for e
I know that lots of people disagree, but even long before 4e, I felt that Succubi were clearly misplaced as demons. I don't mean that they have zero features whatsoever that make it reasonable to call them demons, just that they're a far, far better fit as devils. Yes, they have abilities that can hurt people, because they're monsters. (Almost) all monsters have abilities that can hurt people. If that's the standard of what it takes to make a demon, then every monster makes sense as a demon.
Succubi, along with Imps, are one of the two devil/demon "subtypes" with any cultural traction outside of D&D, with Balors maybe coming in a distant third. (A few others can trace aspects of their designs to various real-world sources, but they're mostly obscure even to people who are reasonably well-versed in the appropriate mythologies.) Because they're so resonant, it's important that they're placed well. Nobody has any preconceived notions of what an Ice Devil should be like, because that's not a thing that anybody's ever heard of, but people do know what a succubus should be like. Unless devils and demons are supposed to be indistinguishable from each other, just undifferentiated masses of scary things, sometimes with horns, I feel that it's important for the succubus to be classed correctly, and they're clearly an awesome fit for being a devil. (In my opinion.)
There's some assertions in this thread that succubi are actually about destruction, but I just don't think that's correct. Compared to every other infernal creature, succubi are the most about manipulation, and they're one of the few creatures that has a built-in motivation that isn't just "stab you".
I don't think that monsters should be messed around with lightly. Maybe I think that medusas are more neutral evil than lawful evil or something, but whatever. That's not that big of a miss. (This isn't a real opinion of mine.) Heck, maybe I even think that medusas should be called gorgons, and the bull monster with a breath attack should get a new name, but I can live with the unusual naming decision. Things should only be screwed with when they're so powerfully off-base that the decision is truly compelling, and, in my opinion, succubi qualify. Making them demons screws with everything that being a devil or demon is even supposed to me. I think it's okay for there to be some variation within each group, but it's wrong to take what'd be the perfect iconic devil and make it a demon. It's like having a "Fey" monster type and then making Pixies Elementals. You can make reasonable arguments for calling a pixie an elemental, but it's weird to have what would otherwise be an iconic and recognizable creature type be the thing that's highly nonstandard for its grouping.
Succubi, along with Imps, are one of the two devil/demon "subtypes" with any cultural traction outside of D&D, with Balors maybe coming in a distant third. (A few others can trace aspects of their designs to various real-world sources, but they're mostly obscure even to people who are reasonably well-versed in the appropriate mythologies.) Because they're so resonant, it's important that they're placed well. Nobody has any preconceived notions of what an Ice Devil should be like, because that's not a thing that anybody's ever heard of, but people do know what a succubus should be like. Unless devils and demons are supposed to be indistinguishable from each other, just undifferentiated masses of scary things, sometimes with horns, I feel that it's important for the succubus to be classed correctly, and they're clearly an awesome fit for being a devil. (In my opinion.)
There's some assertions in this thread that succubi are actually about destruction, but I just don't think that's correct. Compared to every other infernal creature, succubi are the most about manipulation, and they're one of the few creatures that has a built-in motivation that isn't just "stab you".
I don't think that monsters should be messed around with lightly. Maybe I think that medusas are more neutral evil than lawful evil or something, but whatever. That's not that big of a miss. (This isn't a real opinion of mine.) Heck, maybe I even think that medusas should be called gorgons, and the bull monster with a breath attack should get a new name, but I can live with the unusual naming decision. Things should only be screwed with when they're so powerfully off-base that the decision is truly compelling, and, in my opinion, succubi qualify. Making them demons screws with everything that being a devil or demon is even supposed to me. I think it's okay for there to be some variation within each group, but it's wrong to take what'd be the perfect iconic devil and make it a demon. It's like having a "Fey" monster type and then making Pixies Elementals. You can make reasonable arguments for calling a pixie an elemental, but it's weird to have what would otherwise be an iconic and recognizable creature type be the thing that's highly nonstandard for its grouping.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
