D&D 4E What do you think of the 4E background to demons & devils?

[D.Shaffer]

On the Devil side, what is this "order" that they're trying to impose on the Multiverse? Do they have any goal besides escape from the Nine Hells? It would get old if all demon-related quests were "Astral jailbreaks", so I hope they flesh this out some more.

On the Demon side, I could use some more dimensionality than "kill! kill!". That gets boring too after a while .

For me this breaks down into two simple categories.

Demons=Entropy. They are beings of chaos. They want to tear everything back down to its base elements. More intelligent demons just want to MAXIMIZE their destructive tendencies.

Devils=Corruption. They dont want to destroy, they want to possess. They want to make the world more like them. Convert it into a structure they find more pleasing.

Neither of these two are really all that groundbreaking when you get down to it, but I think that's part of the reason I like it. It ties it closer to our preexisting myths and legends, which, IMO, gives it a bit more veracity when it's retold. My friends have often complained that fictional mythologies dont really SOUND like 'real' mythology, and I suspect this is something Wizards is trying to avoid.

 

[Barastrondo]

And I'm sure someone that started out playing Tunnels and Trolls would feel even more that way.

That's... uh...

The red box was never part of AD&D and so there were no "changes" to AD&D at that time. "Elf" was never a character class in AD&D. Basic D&D was a different game. The AD&D cosmology has been relatively unchanged if you consider the chain of custody to go D&D -> AD&D -> 3rd Edition.

And if you don't? D&D has not always meant "AD&D." I am not entirely sure why the fact that D&D no longer means "AD&D" is such a point of controversy.

 

[Drammattex]

I really wish I could play under a great DM again.

To me, demons and devils have been walking bags of hit points and powers that sit in the BBEG slot at the end of a video game. They bore me. If I had a DM who could handle them in a cool and interesting way, perhaps it would be different.

IMO, the 4e take on demons and devils recasts them into interesting roles. Devils now come complete with a copy of "Paradise Lost" and gain a much more romantic aspect, while demons take notes from The Exorcist, H.P. Lovecraft, and The Dark Tower (if you've been following the recent mythology written on The Dark Tower, 4e demons seem very similar).

On the romance of devils, here's a bit from the Paradise Lost Wikipedia entry:
The protagonist of this epic is the fallen angel, Satan. Looked at from a modern perspective it may appear to some that Milton presents Satan sympathetically, as an ambitious and proud being who defies his creator, omnipotent God, and wages war on Heaven, only to be defeated and cast down. Indeed, William Blake, a great admirer of Milton and illustrator of the epic poem, said of Milton that "he was a true Poet, and of the Devil's party without knowing it."[1] Some critics regard the character of Lucifer as a precursor of the Byronic hero.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost

Can't get the Dark Tower wiki to load up in order to give a good example, but this concept of beings of chaos and discord from beyond gives a very clear picture of what to expect when encountering a demon. Think Lovecraft, think shoggoths and Shub-Niggurath, think of mad voices from the void, insanity, and chaos.

This is the sort of thing that interests me in playing regular D&D again instead of house ruling every blasted thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And if you don't? D&D has not always meant "AD&D." I am not entirely sure why the fact that D&D no longer means "AD&D" is such a point of controversy.

YOU CAN HAVE MY VOWELS WHEN YOU TAKE THEM FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!

 

[gizmo33]

And if you don't? D&D has not always meant "AD&D." I am not entirely sure why the fact that D&D no longer means "AD&D" is such a point of controversy.

I don't think it's controversial. I'm not exactly against changing the DnD cosmology - though in this case I think the characterization of demons and devils are pretty consistent with their earlier design. DnD hasn't meant ADnD, that's true - however, there has been, more or less, a single strong thread of "intellectual property" or canon and it runs right through AD&D and not through red box DnD. That's why devil swine, living statues, et. al. were not in the Monster Manual, among other aspects of red box DnD (like the 36 level cap, elves as character classes, etc.).

 

[Wombat]

I'm not fond of this approach ...

... but then again, I am not fond of the old approach either.

One of the things I loathe in D&D is the cosmology. Therefore I have always scrapped it and replaced it with my own, which makes them a much better fit with the worlds I am running.

As such, the "background" on demons vis a vis devils, usw, in the core rules does not matter one whit to me.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Having wanted pretty much everything they've said about the planes, from 'pockets' in an Astral Sea (even if you can't sail it, it sounds like what fantasy types might call it) to separated demons and devils (hell, even the Tharizdun thing works for me!), and in light of the increased local levels of Nerd Rage, I have only this to say...*adjusts custom user title*

And I'm gonna put something out here: I admit I've only read about the first 12 pages of the Fiendish Codex for the Abyss. But there doesn't seem to be anything in there that's invalidated by this. That whole "Tharizdun threw the evil seed in the Tempest and now's it's the Abyss" thing? That could easily be, on behalf of the gods, what we like to call "a lie". Because "Oh, the Abyss? Yeah, our fault, by-product of making the world" doesn't sound as divine and confidence-inspiring as "Oh, the Abyss? Yeah, Tharizdun made it because he's evil. Go find one of his followers and hit him in the face, k?"

 

[Khur]

Those who see my article as broad strokes are on track. Those who see demons as forces of unmaking are on track. The article's (and Rich Baker's) generalities will get their refinement as the game evolves. Graz'zt won't need to be a devil, for example. He can have his place in the Abyss, right alongside Lolth (but below her, since she's a deity) without contradicting the broad strokes at all. Each specific entity can heve exceptions to the general.

Also, plenty of monsters will be in MM1, but not all the monsters you expect to see in D&D will be. Those that have a home in the new edition will eventually see release, however. Sometimes they'll even get a polish that makes them into something more useful and compelling, and maybe even more mythologically accurate.

 

[hectorse]

I love it.

 

[sckeener]

My least favorite part about it, actually, is that in three years freelancers are going to re-retcon everything back into it anyway, except we'll still have demons as corrupted elementals and stuff. So by the "end" of 4.0 we'll have a confusing mis-mash that tries to please everyone but ends up just as confusing as what we have now.

Mark my words.

marked. Considering y'all cleaned up the Abyss retcon, I'd be happy to make a bet that it will happen.

I'm also a little concerned about what happens to "scheming" demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet. It's ironic that the Demonomicon is probably the most popular

I guess it is going to become Devilnomicon and Malcanthet is going to be a Lady of Hell since succubi are devils....but then one has to wonder what happens to Lady Fierna.

It's also unclear to what degree the planes will be akin to an afterlife, and the role of mortal souls on the planes remains unclear. I really (really) liked the idea that some demons were the "evolved" souls of wicked mortals (this is Orcus's origin, after all), and it seems like we may be losing that.

I think that is going to be just fluff and DM prerogative.