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

[Alzrius]

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.

I understand that they're trying to reconcile both approaches; I just don't think that reconciliation should be paramount, compared to making the most thematically-accurate portrayal of the creature in question.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

There's something to this argument. My counter would be that it makes demons too one-dimensional. As I said earlier, 4E demons were mostly just hyperactive balls of rage. Which is fine and all, but it gets old. Neither demons nor devils have a monopoly on brutality and violence, and I don't think either side should have a monopoly on temptation either. Demons are about chaos, entropy, the breakdown of order and ultimately of life itself; devils are about domination, control, ambition. Each faction should have room for a variety of approaches to its goals.

The succubus isn't offering a deal where you knowingly trade your soul for mind-blowing sex. She's just offering sex, and then when you get busy she sucks the life out of you. It isn't a grand overarching scheme. She's hungry and you're dinner. In a more general sense, the succubus encourages mortals to break rules, to give in to their passions, to embrace Dionysian chaos. This is how demons go about corrupting people--not by offering them tricky deals, but by giving them the license and the means to indulge their most selfish (and self-destructive) desires.

I understand that they're trying to reconcile both approaches; I just don't think that reconciliation should be paramount, compared to making the most thematically-accurate portrayal of the creature in question.

Accurate to which theme? Obviously I share your preference for the succubi-as-demons theme, but the succubi-as-devils theme was established in 4E and has its own supporters. Though perhaps it would be better to split succubi into demonic and diabolic versions, and then each one could fully embrace its chosen faction. This was where both 3E and 4E ended up--3E had "pleasure devils" which were the diabolic equivalent of succubi, and 4E chose to make the incubus into a separate creature and put it with the demons.

Then the question becomes which side gets the coveted "succubus" moniker.

 

[gyor]

That's your personal interperation, but the motives can be anything the DM chooses. Also Succubi aren't vampires or kike the succubi in Lost Girl, they don't need to feed on life force to survive mechanically which gives the DM the freedom to have more control over the succubus' personality.

 

[Alzrius]

Accurate to which theme? Obviously I share your preference for the succubi-as-demons theme, but the succubi-as-devils theme was established in 4E and has its own supporters. Though perhaps it would be better to split succubi into demonic and diabolic versions, and then each one could fully embrace its chosen faction. This was where both 3E and 4E ended up--3E had "pleasure devils" which were the diabolic equivalent of succubi, and 4E chose to make the incubus into a separate creature and put it with the demons.

Then the question becomes which side gets the coveted "succubus" moniker.

I'm not sure that I'd call succubi-as-devils "thematic," though that could simply be because I'm unfamiliar with them. That said, I'd say that questions of theme for a monster are overarching, and transcend any specific edition. When you see a black dragon, you think of acid breath. When you see a beholder, you think of eye-beams (antimagic and otherwise). When you see a succubus, you think of passionate energy draining (which is lacking any themes of "corruption"). This simply fits with demons better than it does with devils, as it's almost perfectly aligned with what the former do; for the latter, by contrast, the best you can say is that it doesn't run counter to what they do.

These are established themes simply because they've been around long enough and are iconic enough to have become enduring; they're part of the D&D game itself.

I recognize that what constitutes a specific thing having become thematic or iconic defies easy interpretation, even when commonly recognized, but that's the rubric I'd use (it's also a substantial part of the argument in favor of traditionalism in design).

That's your personal interperation, but the motives can be anything the DM chooses. Also Succubi aren't vampires or like the succubi in Lost Girl, they don't need to feed on life force to survive mechanically which gives the DM the freedom to have more control over the succubus' personality.

I fixed your problematic typo.

Yes, the motives can be anything the GM chooses, but as I pointed out previously, that's not really germane to the discussion (also, as written, D&D vampires don't require blood to survive, since no particular Monstrous/Monster Manual details what happens if they don't feed for too long, though some supplements do).

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not sure that I'd call succubi-as-devils "thematic," though that could simply be because I'm unfamiliar with them. That said, I'd say that questions of theme for a monster are overarching, and transcend any specific edition. When you see a black dragon, you think of acid breath. When you see a beholder, you think of eye-beams (antimagic and otherwise). When you see a succubus, you think of passionate energy draining (which is lacking any themes of "corruption").

These are established themes simply because they've been around long enough and are iconic enough to have become enduring; they're part of the D&D game itself.

I recognize that what constitutes a specific thing having become thematic or iconic defies easy interpretation, even when commonly recognized, but that's the rubric I'd use (it's also a substantial part of the argument in favor of traditionalism in design).

Hmm. I'd call that "concept" rather than "theme," but I get your point.

And here's another thing to think about: If we're splitting up concepts on the basis of "devils tempt and corrupt, demons slaughter and destroy," that demands much more far-reaching changes than 4E made. If demons have to give up succubi, devils should have to give up all the militaristic warrior-devil types that dominate their middle ranks. You'd clean out everything from lemures to gelugons. The only survivors would be imps and succubi, and the handful of high-ranking devils like pit fiends that combine subtlety with combat prowess.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

And they have a recent history of bastardizing themselves when it suits them (arguably, that history is not so recent).

I think the design criteria for 5e (ie: a "big tent" where fans of every e are welcome) mandates that they take into account the 4e devil-style succubus. You may question whether this is or is not the right criteria to design for (I tend to think it's a pretty good call), but given that constraint, 5e cannot retcon the 4e devil-style succubus, regardless of the reasons they may have for doing so. Rename, recategorize, re-explain, re-contextualize (what I wouldn't give to see one of these Wyatt columns talk about what DMs can do to adapt their monsters to their OWN games, instead of laying down some absurd new canon!), but it needs to be a part of 5e, if 5e is to be a system that welcomes all comers.

Given that constraint, I wonder what may be some alternative ways that one could work to satisfy each camp. I think Wyatt's proposition isn't bad (it just ignores DM agency in favor of laying down What Is True In D&D, which is a bigger problem than Wyatt). I can think of a few other ways it can be done (admittedly, I'm not familiar with the fiction Wyatt lists as part of the canon that he feels inclined to adhere to, so this may violate that).

1. Succubi are demons who love to destroy the world with sexuality. Erinyes are devils who tempt mortals into acts of depravity of all sorts. A succubus comes into town and leaves a syphilitic plague behind her. An erinyes comes to town, and suddenly the local king gets a lot more...forceful.
2. Succubi might be demons or devils. Here's an example of what a demon-succubus might be. Here's an example of what a devil-succubus might be. This is an example of how you can define your campaign's tone with a simple change. The PC's do not know which side a succubi might be on unless you tell them.
3. Succubi are yugoloths, known to work for both sides. They have been part of the Demonic hordes, and have been part of the Devil's heirarchy, each side utterly convinced that their side represented the TRUE nature of the succubus. The true nature of the succubus is actually mystery, deception, and untruth, which actually fits with yugoloths. This may or may not be known to people in your campaign world: they may think the succubi might be demons, or devils, or neither, and perhaps as far as that world is concerned, this is true enough. One should not put much stake in such knowledge, though.
4. Succubi are the offspring of Hags, specifically Night Hags, and as such are actually fey creatures, not fiends at all. As the Night Hag is a hunter of dreams, so is the succubus, literally the woman of your dreams made real. The hags have placed succubi networks in both demonic and devilsh ranks, but the hags are their true mothers, and succubi who do well may be promoted to Night Hag status, abandoning any pretense of Law or Chaos and embracing their own selfish path to power.

Some of those ideas are probably untenable for other reasons, but "Ignore 4e Devil Succubi" isn't an option that 5e has.

The big thing is, the borders of "succubus" need to expand. It can include the destructive-lust succubus that you and I favor, those succubi are part of the model still. They just aren't the ONLY part of that anymore. It's a bigger tent, because the designers have determined that embracing 4e fans is more important to them than strictly defining the succubus as one specific kind of fiend only. I can't really fault them for that choice.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Succubi are demons who love to destroy the world with sexuality. Erinyes are devils who tempt mortals into acts of depravity of all sorts. A succubus comes into town and leaves a syphilitic plague behind her. An erinyes comes to town, and suddenly the local king gets a lot more...forceful.

I choose this.

To me, the essential difference between demons and devils is that the former encourage chaos and the latter are essentially lawful in a hierarchical structure. Temptation/destruction and monster/humanoid are not important or relevant distinctions between the two.

 

[Shemeska]

I'd object to the 4e characterization of devils as wanting "corruption", in that that characterization of them is at some odds with previous conceptions.

They don't want corruption, they want control, order, hierarchy, rigidity, etc. This was pretty clear to me up till 4e, with 4e being an outlier, but that original conception then continues with Pathfinder. Personally I find corruption to be less of an end than a means for both devils and demons alike (and 'loths though they just want to see suffering; and PF daemons just want you dead). Devils want control, demons want not corruption but destruction (with corruption being a route and a means to that end).

 

[pemerton]

They don't want corruption, they want control, order, hierarchy, rigidity, etc.

What makes them evil, then? Presumably the answer is that they don't care - or even prefer - that the order in question be one secured via temptation and corruption.

It's not as if there is no reason from lore outside the game to associate devils with corruption.

And in Tolkienian terms, Melkor's motivations resemble those of a devil, whereas Ungoliant's resemble those of a demon.

 

[MarkB]

I tend to think that Demons and Devils don't differ that greatly in terms of their ultimate goals - they want to control whatever they can subjugate, and destroy anything they can't control.

It's in their methodology that they differ - demons use force, terror tactics and coercion to achieve their goals, whilst devils use temptation, corruption and manipulation.