Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manabarbs" data-source="post: 6184587" data-attributes="member: 6717251">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.</blockquote>

Verification