D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Rosemary's Baby

[Alzrius]

Not offending me in any sense. I'm responding to you claiming I am ignoring your reasons for why you like them fixed as demons.

Which you did, because I said why I felt they worked best that way, and you didn't address those reasons.

I have not addressed it because I don't see the point. Others have expressed why they think they fit best with devils, and their reasoning is as valid as yours.

That isn't a given - people's opinions are equally valid (notwithstanding issues of how informed their opinions are); people's reasons are not.

If I say that I hate Mr. X's shoes, and someone else says that they like them, those are two opinions that are equally valid.

If I kill Mr. X because I hate his shoes, that's a poor reason. If I kill Mr. X because he murdered my family, that's a much better reason (leaving aside questions of legality and justification).

So, bottom line, given two lines of reasoning which are equally valid, they should go with the majority view that it can fit with either and be it's own thing so you can adapt it in your campaign however you like.

Incorrect; see above.

I just never understand the one-true-way view that says we should decrease options for people "because this is my preference for my games". My default is always going to be, "more options for the most number of people".

This seems to be due to your misunderstanding the difference between personal preference and qualitative reasoning.

 

[Mistwell]

Which you did, because I said why I felt they worked best that way, and you didn't address those reasons.



That isn't a given - people's opinions are equally valid (notwithstanding issues of how informed their opinions are); people's reasons are not.

In this case, in my opinion, their reasons were in fact equal to yours. You have not made a compelling argument, in my opinion, for them to be one thing or the other thing. Your argument was as persuasive, to me, as theirs was to make them devils. For reference, I have copied the counter-opinions to the bottom of this reply. I am not sure why you think you've made your case better than they made their case, but in my opinion it's roughly a push.

This seems to be due to your misunderstanding the difference between personal preference and qualitative reasoning.

The quality of your reasoning was no more or less valuable in this case than the quality of the reasoning for the people who disagree with your viewpoint.

Therefore, given this is a case of all things being roughly equal (in my opinion), allowing them to work for either faction is a logical and compelling resolution of the disagreement between the two views presented.

And you are free to not like it. Fortunately, the result of allowing them to work for either faction allows the maximum amount of adaptability for each DM. If you want them to be just one faction, you can do that within this rules-set without any real disruption to compatibility with other rules. It's conceivable that some published adventure will come out that employs this monster as being affiliated with the faction you don't want them affiliated with, and then you will need to either houserule that adventure or skip it for your game. But I hardly think that potential, somewhat unlikely, and extremely minor element in the sea of material that comes with an edition of D&D is sufficient to justify the stridency of your position as expressed in this thread.

In other words, I think you're either stressing over nothing, or exaggerating your distress for effect, or both.

Here, for reference, is the counter-argument presented in this thread:

In 4e devils were all about corrupting, and demons were about destroying. The methods used by succubi made them align better with devils than demons.

Klaus hit the meat of the argument, in that demons were more focused on destruction while devils were more about corruption. The other part of it, I think, is that devils tended to have more humanoid forms, while demons are all over the map.

Having said that, succubi = devils made a lot of logical sense to me. Demons and Devils needed better differentiation. Demons as destroyers and Devils as corrupters appeals very much. It gives them stronger motivation for conflict, more differentiation for story-telling. The old Planescape line that the only difference between demons and devils is you get paid before the job by the former, and after the job by the latter always annoyed me. I don't care if it was tongue-in-cheek. It struck too close to home that the two races were horribly similar in both design, motivations and behaviors.

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"..

 

[Alzrius]

In this case, in my opinion, their reasons were in fact equal to yours.

And in that case, I have a differing opinion, which is just as valid.

You have not made a compelling argument, in my opinion, for them to be one thing or the other thing. Your argument was as persuasive, to me, as theirs was to make them devils.

Which leads to the logical question of why, exactly? That is, you're reached an opinion, presumably an informed one, so now I'm asking that the discussion/debate be elevated to the level of the examination of the underlying information and the reasoning used. An opinion is the end product of processing information, so let's examine the process.

The quality of your reasoning was no more or less valuable in this case than the quality of the reasoning for the people who disagree with your viewpoint.

Great, now please restate that with specifics instead of generalities.

Therefore, given this is a case of all things being roughly equal (in my opinion), allowing them to work for either faction is a logical and compelling resolution of the disagreement between the two views presented.

And I disagree that they're all equal (in my opinion); hence why we're talking about this topic to begin with.

And you are free to not like it.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it (which makes it odd that you bring that up at all). It's about the process of discussing and debating the merits and/or flaws of an idea.

Fortunately, the result of allowing them to work for either faction allows the maximum amount of adaptability for each DM. If you want them to be just one faction, you can do that within this rules-set without any real disruption to compatibility with other rules. It's conceivable that some published adventure will come out that employs this monster as being affiliated with the faction you don't want them affiliated with, and then you will need to either houserule that adventure or skip it for your game.

It goes without saying that the caveat of "you can change it yourself" is a non-factor in discussing the merits/flaws of some narrative element (at least within the context of an RPG) since that's equally true across the board. "If you don't like it, change it yourself" is a way of dismissing the other person's point, rather than engage it.

But I hardly think that potential, somewhat unlikely, and extremely minor element in the sea of material that comes with an edition of D&D is sufficient to justify the stridency of your position as expressed in this thread.

You're misrepresenting my so-called "stridency." I'm simply engaging in a debate - that you don't realize that says more about you, I think, than it does me.

In other words, I think you're either stressing over nothing, or exaggerating your distress for effect, or both.

I'm not stressed at all; I'm enjoying the conversation. I just wish that you'd stop trying to mischaracterize or deflect the reasons under discussion here and instead start actually discussing them on their own specific merits (or lack thereof).

 

[Savage Wombat]

Can I just say that, reading your posts - I can no longer understand what the two of you are even saying to one another. Maybe a restatement of thesis is in order?

 

[Alzrius]

Can I just say that, reading your posts - I can no longer understand what the two of you are even saying to one another. Maybe a restatement of thesis is in order?

No problem, my original post was earlier in the thread, but I'll repost the salient point here (the bracketed part is added for clarity):

I personally think [this change is] ill-advised because - even leaving aside the knee-jerk dismissal of tradition as a legitimate factor - if you follow with the idea that "devils are corrupters, demons are destroyers," then succubi make much better demons than they do devils.

The idea that succubi - or at least, D&D succubi - use sex and temptation to lead mortals down a dark path always struck me as being misguided. Succubi are there to kill people using sex; that's why they energy drain you with a kiss (or any other carnal act). Most people in the game world are 1st-level, which makes even a single instance of passion with a succubi deadly, and even most heroes won't be able to withstand very much before being reduced to a dead, withered husk.

True, succubi do often use deception to accomplish this, but that's a question of methodology; "destruction" and "corruption" are goals, and are silent as to how those goals are achieved. You can use subterfuge and lies to get into a position to put a knife in someone's back, and they'll be just as dead as if you'd torn their head off; that's the lesson in destruction that succubi showcase.

To me, they've always been quintessential demons; they want you to pucker up and die.

In other words, making succubi demons is the most thematically-appropriate choice, as what they do aligns near-perfectly with what demons do. Having them be devils, or trying to split the difference, is (to me) less appropriate without redefining some of their core features (e.g. energy draining as part of sex/a kiss).

 

[Dausuul]

It goes without saying that the caveat of "you can change it yourself" is a non-factor in discussing the merits/flaws of some narrative element (at least within the context of an RPG) since that's equally true across the board. "If you don't like it, change it yourself" is a way of dismissing the other person's point, rather than engage it.

Normally I would agree with this, but in this case the narrative element is designed to accommodate both views without requiring changes. Succubi are independent fiends that are sometimes affiliated with demons and sometimes with devils. Thus, no change is required to explain a particular succubus being linked to either group. Even demon lords like Malcanthet and Graz'zt can be explained as having attracted large numbers of chaotic-leaning succubi and incubi to their respective banners.

I'm not fond of this solution, personally. I prefer succubi as demons; I think they bring sorely needed variety to demons, who are mostly just hyperactive balls of rage. The succubus offers a subtler take on the theme of chaos and entropy. But having already made the mistake of trying to shove succubi into the devil camp, WotC has to find a way to satisfy both sides, and this is about the best solution I can see.

 

[Alzrius]

Normally I would agree with this, but in this case the narrative element is designed to accommodate both views without requiring changes.

I think you misunderstood me. My statement regarding "saying 'you can change it for your home game' is dismissive" is in regards to people using that as a rebuttal to others saying why they think something is not good. That, unto itself, has nothing to do with the changes to the succubus in particular.

 

[MarkB]

In other words, making succubi demons is the most thematically-appropriate choice, as what they do aligns near-perfectly with what demons do. Having them be devils, or trying to split the difference, is (to me) less appropriate without redefining some of their core features (e.g. energy draining as part of sex/a kiss).

Pretty much all demons and devils have some form of dangerous attack at their disposal. Would you suggest that they're removed from every devil because devils are more focused upon corruption than physical force? Or is it more likely that both demons and devils are deadly opponents, differing only in the methods they prefer to use in achieving their goals?

Succubi in mythology are pretty much the poster-kids of corruption through temptation - precisely what devils are about. The fact that D&D succubi have a deadly attack which they can employ as the culmination of that temptation doesn't detract from that role at all - it makes them the ultimate evil seductresses, able to lead people on towards evil and corruption with the promise of carnal pleasure, only to send them to their doom if that promise is ever fulfilled.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you misunderstood me. My statement regarding "saying 'you can change it for your home game' is dismissive" is in regards to people using that as a rebuttal for people saying why they think something is not good. That, unto itself, has nothing to do with the changes to the succubus in particular.

With that, I mostly agree. I do think there is merit in pursuing a course that makes it easier to change succubi for one's home game; it is relatively easy to adapt Wyatt's proposal to either succubi-as-demons or succubi-as-devils, whereas fully embracing either camp would have left the other one out in the cold. Since they can't go back and erase 4E, this is probably the best way to reconcile the two groups. But IMO it would have been better if there had never been anything to reconcile and succubi had stayed demons all along.

 

[Alzrius]

Pretty much all demons and devils have some form of dangerous attack at their disposal. Would you suggest that they're removed from every devil because devils are more focused upon corruption than physical force? Or is it more likely that both demons and devils are deadly opponents, differing only in the methods they prefer to use in achieving their goals?

This is a valid line of critique, but only insofar as showing the flaws of the "devils as corrupters" argument goes.

As it stands, it's not just that succubi have a deadly attack that makes them more appropriate to be demons, it's that that attack (and luring creatures into a position where they can use it) is central to how they interact with mortals. Their basic description has them 1) tempting/deceiving mortals into sex, and 2) the sex kills them. That's it. That's far more central to their character than the fact that a cornugon can use lightning bolt.

Succubi in mythology are pretty much the poster-kids of corruption through temptation - precisely what devils are about.

Leaving aside the fact that the original mythological succubi - creatures that simply mounted men in their sleep and stole their seed, which today we'd call sexual assault - didn't tempt men to wicked acts, this is an excellent lesson in conflating the mythology with the D&D creature. It's not like D&D is bound to having the game monster follow the mythological depiction of a creature; they have a long history of bastardizing monsters as it suits them.

The fact that D&D succubi have a deadly attack which they can employ as the culmination of that temptation doesn't detract from that role at all - it makes them the ultimate evil seductresses, able to lead people on towards evil and corruption with the promise of carnal pleasure, only to send them to their doom if that promise is ever fulfilled.

Except that neither that attack, nor the use of temptation itself, is indicative of such a role (corrupter) being suggested at all. It just means that they're an ambush predator, luring their prey in and then killing them when they're within reach. Now, you can use them in other ways, but that's going beyond what's presented.