Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DarkKestral" data-source="post: 3795684" data-attributes="member: 40100">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.</blockquote>

Verification