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

[DarkKestral]

Personally, I dislike it. A lot. I won't say I hate it entirely, now that the demons have been expanded a bit (I actually find the idea of demons as being, in part, highly corrupted elemental beings somewhat interesting), but I personally find the entire Asmodeus rebelling thing annoying and unimaginative, and I HATE the bits at the end of the article.

Some demons have been known as types who are generals (mariliths anyone?!) while some devils have almost always been "carnage for the sake of carnage" types. They can still be used to embody the splits between the two.. you just have to fluff them right. I don't think erinyes should be mixed with succubi either, because erinyes ARE different from succubi. Mythologically, erinyes were personifications of vengeance, not sex. They didn't normally sex humans to death; their usual M.O. was ripping people apart limb from limb, not causing them to die from supernatural sex.

Honestly, I think the entire thing REEKS of "change for the sake of pointless change." Granted, demons and devils were mechanically similar. Is the fluff SO tied to mechanics that it was impossible to simply flesh them out a bit without completely altering the cosmology? Even if the Great Wheel isn't explicitly mentioned, it would have been nice to see it not completely messed with. Most of the campaign settings they might put out use different cosmologies, and several of them are tied to the old-style demon/devil split. (Planescape especially) So it will confuse the heck out of older players, while also adding to the difficulty of adapting older settings to use the new material, which adds to the time needed figure out to run the monster and place it into the world appropriately which 4th ed is trying to reduce.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't think erinyes should be mixed with succubi either, because erinyes ARE different from succubi. Mythologically, erinyes were personifications of vengeance, not sex. They didn't normally sex humans to death; their usual M.O. was ripping people apart limb from limb, not causing them to die from supernatural sex.

However, this has never been the raison d'etre of erinyes in D&D.

They've always been seducers; it's only the revised Third Edition Monster Manual which gives them a martial bent of any kind.

 

[BronzeGolem]

Personally, I really dislike this change. I didn't think that demons and devils according to WotC were perfect. But instead of dealing with it, they've opted for this bizarre Twilight Zone option where they simply disposed of everything that was good along with everything that needed improvement.

 

[Flobby]

I love it. Great idea, but then, like many of you, I never really liked the Great Wheel concept. It was just too "neat" if you know what I mean. This way it seems much more flexible for the purpose of making yr own campaign worlds. Both types of those entites mentioned (devils and demons) are to be found in fantasy right?-- the tricky ones that resemble humans and the tentacled-lets-kill-everything-monsters. Now we have any easier reference to use both of them in our adventures. And I always thought that for creatures that were supposed to epitomise (sp?) CE they just didn't seem chaotic enough- now they do!

And as for "the changes for changes sake" argument, it's just another way of saying "I don't like the change." It has little meaning other than that. I just means you want your same old D&D-- which is fine but why not just say that? I for one say through everything in a blender and see what happens! Well, not really but I would rather see a D&D that allowed me to play a variety of fantasy tropes, rather than just the "D&D world." What they are doing in 4E seems much more conductive for this.

For me the great thing about D&D was that you use the rules and such to make your own worlds. I found a lot of things limiting my ability to do this in 3E, and (so far at least) 4E seems much more variable and more conductiveto tweeking.

 

[DarkKestral]

However, this has never been the raison d'etre of erinyes in D&D.

They've always been seducers; it's only the revised Third Edition Monster Manual which gives them a martial bent of any kind.

Aye, but if the fact that both LE and CE have 'seducers', one option that's better than just saying 'screw it, we're just getting rid of one type' is.. rebuilding the other to fit a role it's been given in earlier editions that's separate from the role you don't need. And when that second role ALSO fits with the mythology the monster's based on, and the role you want to get rid of doesn't... why not go the second route? That's what sticks in my craw. And 3rd ed. DID give them their martial bent back. So their raison d'etre was there. And AFAIK, they had something of that role in 2nd ed. in some settings. So it's not completely devoid of tradition, either.

But that's the thing. I'd much rather have the planes be rather undetailed than detailed in a way that seemingly completely breaks with the history of the core cosmologies. Assuming I decide to buy the books and then GM for a 4th ed game in a demo type situation or something, (because it looks like the only way to get a group, at the moment) I might well do it as a core game to show off the rules (after all, it looks like they're likely to rock, mostly) and I'd like a cosmology that sticks with the history or at least looks like it will at least not contradict it.

Mind you, I admittedly hate a LOT of the 4th ed. fluff, so some of it certainly is a sour grapes situation going on, but I'm looking at it as "if I have a old 2nd ed gamer in the group and I'm trying to show off the core books + fluff to him, will he recognize the game based on the core setting material?" and getting the answer "probably not, which means it'll have to be on the rules alone... which may be difficult." A player of 3.0 or 3.5 will probably recognize the ruleset, but might get thrown off by the setting. It breaks so strongly with the current core that some of us don't get the feeling that it follows with what's gone before. So my core only game (including, to some degree, the setting) may not feel very core to a player who hasn't read the 4th edition's books beforehand and wants to learn the new rules, but has read those of prior editions and understands those quite well. So now I have to convert the devils and demons' power structures back to what the previous editions have had them like, get rid of Asmo as a god, and generally hack off bits and pieces of fluff all over the place, or I have to avoid planar adventuring like the plague, even at high level.

So from my perspective it really IS "change for change's sake", because it is change without a necessary reason for change. Because it seems to break with history without reasonable backup. Making demons and devils mechanically less similar to each other than they now are is a good reason to change the mechanics of devils and demons. It's not a good reason to change the entire planar structure, necessarily. The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first, in my mind. The designers had better give me more reasoning before they do that than they've given.

So far, the only things I'm dead on happy with is "Core is points of light in a dark world" and "Wizards use staves, wands, and orbs in combat to aid their spellcasting." The implementation of that second idea hasn't thrilled me, though. Right now, I'd probably not buy the books if I were just getting into RPGs, because I hate a lot of the fluff. I'm just really annoyed that I have to wait 2 years or more to get some work done on the demons and devils that I'll like (I hate FR, and I'm ambivalent about Eberron. It sounds OK, and has cool setting elements, but somehow feels bland too so that's the first 2 years of 4th ed. setting material down the drain, since WotC will only be releasing 1 setting per year.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

The designers had better give me more reasoning before they do that than they've given.

Why?

Seriously, why? Why do the designers owe you an explanation at all?

The internet has seriously spoiled us. Because we now can communicate with the designers, we assume that they must, in turn, tell us everything they're doing, and why.

Nobody explained each and every change from 1E to 2E, or from 2E to 3E.

Nobody explained why some of the changes were made in the remake of the Omen.

Nobody explained why the writers chose to advance the backstory with the Time War when they started Dr. Who back up in 2005.

Creators create, and if they choose to explain why they're doing what they're doing, that's a bonus. The designers owe us exactly one thing: Their best efforts at a game that'll be worth the money we pay to buy it. Period.

They change what they change. I guarantee you they have reasons for those changes. Some may be based on market research. Some may be based on personal taste. Some may be based on earlier playtests that we know nothing about.

And they are required to explain none of it. In fact, if some of the changes are based on market research, it's in their best interests not to explain it, lest they give up an advantage to competing companies.

Seriously, man, you don't like a lot of what you've heard about 4E, that's entirely your right. But claims that the designers are changing things without reason, or demanding that they make every reason known to us, are both short-sighted and ill-conceived.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Aye, but if the fact that both LE and CE have 'seducers', one option that's better than just saying 'screw it, we're just getting rid of one type' is.. rebuilding the other to fit a role it's been given in earlier editions that's separate from the role you don't need. And when that second role ALSO fits with the mythology the monster's based on, and the role you want to get rid of doesn't... why not go the second route?

Consider the change on its own terms, for a moment.

1) Devils and demons, as categories of monster, are being overhauled. Devils are conceived of as primarily humanoid in appearance, demons are nonhumanoid.

2) The succubus and erinyes are both humanoid, female fiends whose primary purpose is seduction of mortals.

3) Devils are conceived of as laying plans to tempt and corrupt mortals in order to escape their prison, demons are conceived of as seeking to destroy anything and everything they can get their hands on - not necessarily mindlessly, but such is definitely their goal.

4) "Seduction of mortals", while it can "destroy relationships" and the like, is primarily a method by which fiends can "tempt and corrupt".

5) The name "succubus" is better associated with the idea of a fiend which seduces mortals than "erinyes", which has no such association outside of D&D's inaccurate history.

6) Therefore, a succubus should be a humanoid female devil whose primary purpose is seduction of mortals.

7) Therefore, the name "erinyes" can be released from this awkward and unmythological role and saved for a later creature which properly reflects the mythological spirit of vengeance.

Yes? I don't think it's that hard to follow. What you are complaining about is that succubi and erinyes have always been demons and devils respectively, that you think they should remain that way even if it doesn't make sense according to the new schema, and that if it doesn't make sense according to the new schema it's the schema that should be dropped "just because it's traditional".

Forgive me, but I have always loathed the idea of clinging to tradition for no better reason than that it is tradition.

Besides, arguing that they should have kept the erinyes as a devil and reimagined her as a proper spirit of vengeance a) ignores that the succubus still doesn't make much sense and b) is just as much a betrayal of the traditional D&D erinyes as anything else.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I see it as change for the sake of change. The sheep will love it though.

Määäähhh.

That's what German sheeps say. I don't know what they say in English.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I'm positive about the changes; not to the point of "love it!" (because it's not that important to me, really), but positive.

As much as I like Planescape, Blood War and the general conflict between Law and Chaos, I readily admit that the Law-Chaos dichotomy is very contentious and that demons and devils are often insufficiently distinct for beings that, supposedly, epitomize very distinct ideals (pit fiend vs. balor; erinyes vs. succubus).

The corruptor-destroyer separation of the devils and demons is IMO a good distinction, while still allowing for plenty of variation within the groups (and hopefully reducing overlap).

As others have said, I don't see where the idea that the demons' overriding motivation is destruction precludes the smarter of them from having plots and plans, even displaying subtlety when it is necessary. To use the familiar demon types, a swarm of manes is clearly "all murder, all the time"; a hezrou on the Prime Material is primarily going to be interested in violence, gluttony and despoiling things, but it will be crafty enough to curb its destructive tendencies when necessary; and the marilith general will be weaving an elaborate set of plans, with intricate and overlapping contingencies and contradictions, for a demonic invasion to burn the universe.

 

[DarkKestral]

To Mouse: While I'm perfectly OK with designers not talking about every change under the sun, but when you majorly change what is a major part of the default setting, I'd sure like to know why, if it will not be too difficult to say concisely, because too much change without explanation leaves me cold. And I'm fairly sure I'm not alone there. If have cold feet, I won't buy. So in the end, I've generally bought the most stuff from designers who've given some explanations for their biggest changes because it's a lot easier to follow the hows and whys of a major topic or change when the designer clues me in to the reasoning they used. They may not owe me an explanation. They may not get my money either.

Even if there isn't a reason given now for the change to the entire structure, If I get one later, that'd be great. I'm just in my initial shock phase, and for a while probably won't see the reasons for it unless someone can articulate them to me. Obviously, a lot like the changes. I'm never quite sure how accurate these polls are, but if they're true, I gather most don't mind. So at least they don't appear to be too unpopular. I'll give the designers that. And so far, their mechanics notions appear to be in line with what I like. So, on balance, I've liked what I saw. And there's bits I think are great. And I'll give props to the WotC guys. They've generally been fairly open and forthcoming about things, considering.

Mike: actually, I don't mind the erinyes in general being freed up from being a sex fiend (pun unintended) if it means I get a new one that's more "spirit of vengeance"-like. But I do want an erinyes, because I think the mythological monster is too cool to give up. That's all. Can a guy not feel annoyed by the loss of a particular favorite monster? And likewise, the succubus has a long history outside of D&D. Sex monsters go way back in heroic literature...