# Changes to Devils and Demons



## mhensley (Aug 30, 2007)

From Rich Baker's blog-



> - Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
> - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.
> - We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
> - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.




http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386

I don't think I like the sound of this.  It's cutting a bit too close to real religions for me.


----------



## Miar (Aug 30, 2007)

That was my reaction as well.  I didn't like them as they were.  The whole subset of beings who are after your soul just never worked for me.  Anyone want to explain why they like demons and devils so much?


----------



## Someone (Aug 30, 2007)

So, the phrase that better describes succubi is now "turncoat whore?"


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.


----------



## Ace32 (Aug 30, 2007)

Does this mean that demons and devils are no longer bound to a specific alignment? After all, to say that all lawful evil planars are humanoids while all the chaotic ones cannot be is rather rigid. 

Likewise, the poor succubus shouldn't lose chaotic evil status just to fit into this new archetyping game.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 30, 2007)

How many RW religions have a dead or murdered deity? Is it the angels rebelling thing? So did the greek gods against the titans. Lots of mythic parallels to draw on.
I like the changes of combining the succubus and the eryines and giving a greater difference between demons and devils. I don't like the ad hoc Ice Devils are really demons but we fudged it, so they're devils.


----------



## jimpaladin (Aug 30, 2007)

I agree, we'll have to wait and see if they put that fluff in or not.  WotC needs(and i think they are) to be very careful with how they handle the "gods" of the new setting.  They mention using perhaps some real world mythos to bring about a different feel.  Most real world mythos don't have "devils" tho' they do have evil or more accurately anti-human dieties that strive for their own goals.

Anyway, not going to get preachy


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm cool with the whole " re-sort " thing, but I mean, come on! It's almost as if they WANT religious groups to lay the freakin' smackdown on them with an origin story like that.


----------



## Krellic (Aug 30, 2007)

A few weeks ago I got myself a copy of Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells and I thought that the bit they did explaining where the devils originated and how they fitted into the Blood War quite well done.  This new explanation just throws that out which is a real shame.

I think one of the dangers of redesign, reimagining or whatever you call it is that sometimes things get redesigned apparently purely for the sake of someone new getting to put their particular spin on things.

No problem with erinyes and succubi being rolled into a single critter, I suspect the erinyes name is too cool to remain in limbo for long and the ice devil wrinkle seems quite cool - no pun intended - as well.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

So we can guess tiefling have a devilish ancestry, rather than a demoniac one.

I always thought the two category (demons and devils) did not make sense at all, because it was mostly impossible to guess if a particular creature was one or the other. So, I think this is a move in the good direction.

However, I felt a disturbance in the force, as if millions of Planescape's fan suddenly cried in horror...

Btw, erinyes are somewhat more interesting than succubus, IMHO. I guess the sword wielding furry born of the blood of a god is more interesting than the average whore-demon. And the name is cooler, too.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.




Yep, I don't see how it has anything to do with making the game better.


----------



## Anthraxus (Aug 30, 2007)

W...t...f...!


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 30, 2007)

I like it...esp drawing the lines between demons and devils. The Ice Devil thing initally strikes me wierd (I don't mind change, so why leave this one), but I can buy the rationale. It actually sets up an interesting dynamic. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Also confirms yugoloths.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

Don't Know If Want....

Hmm... my immediate reaction is that this screws with the timeline of the origin of Baator, and we've now had a variation of the origin of that plane for pretty much every book that has come out since the late 90's. The Abyss has had more stability than the plane of manifest LE, which is unfortunate.

The twisted little origin for gelugons might be a really nifty idea, but we'll see how the fluff handles this. I can be won over on this one. 'loth origin gelugons, bound by contract and chaffing against it. This could really be developed into some cool stuff. EDIT: 10 minutes later, I'm digging this one.

Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm. Jacobs did some really awesome material with Malcanthet and her rivals, and this change really makes moving them forward into 4th difficult, unless we want to have succubi/erinyes populating both Baator and the Abyss, having split in an ancient ideological schism (or the CE ones having been perverted by X Abyssal lord, obyrith, etc). The in-game rationalization here needs to be amazing or else this change may really, really present difficulties.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I'm cool with the whole " re-sort " thing, but I mean, come on! It's almost as if they WANT religious groups to lay the freakin' smackdown on them with an origin story like that.





Maybe George Lucas is writing for them now.  Clerics are chosen based on their midichlorian count and paladins are given birth from virgin mothers.


----------



## cincinnati reds (Aug 30, 2007)

So I guess I'm the one who likes this.

Of course, I like monotheism in my D&D too, so I suppose my taste for the mythical/divine in my games is different from most.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't even like Planescape, but I have to admit I don't really care for some of these changes either, but it still to early to judge. Right now we are looking at a tidbit who knows what the actual write up in the 4E MM will say.


----------



## Jer (Aug 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.





Meh.  The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that "implied setting" stuff that we've been hearing about.  Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.

The third bullet point is actually the most interesting one to me.  I've been wondering what the devil/demon distinction would be if they are downplaying alignment as a game mechanic in this edition.  I'm not yet sure what I think about it - I don't mind devils looking mostly humanoid, but there's no reason that you can't have humanoid looking demons as well - you don't want to ignore Grazzt's status as a demon lord, for example.  OTOH - collapsing succubi and eriynes into a single devil type bothers me not in the slightest, since I've always thought that succubi should have been devils in the first place and that eriynes were just added to the devil side to make up for that initial mistake.



			
				Miar said:
			
		

> That was my reaction as well. I didn't like them as they were. The whole subset of beings who are after your soul just never worked for me. Anyone want to explain why they like demons and devils so much?




I like 'em because they're the ultimate evil - a great set of villains to capstone a campaign with.  I don't like having races who are "evil by birth" in my games (smacks of too much racism to me), but a group of beings who are supposed to be the true "incarnations of evil"?  That's a set of villains I can sink my teeth into.  

Also, given the age that many of the designers are, I suspect there's a bit of "compensation" going on for second editions cow-towing to the forces who screamed about D&D being "demonic" back in the day.

Also, James "fomer Methodist minister" Wyatt is on the team, so there may be some knowledge about devils and demons he's adding from his own studies...


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 30, 2007)

Oh yeah...and the whole 'too close to RW thing'...nah. Devils need a credible reason to be heinously nasty...and I think killing their deity fits the bill. Bible thumpers will thump over the demons/devils regardless, so if they're in the game (and the should be!) then let them be the nasty things they should be! And remember...they are there so the players can overcome the evil...which is a good thing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on it either, but for a different reason. It feels like change for the sake of change.



It's change for the sake of clarity. The division between demons and devils was pretty obscure, previously. Explaining to a new player "well, they hate each other, because of the ancient war between chaos and order" means a) explaining what the heck THAT means and b) why they should care or why it's cool.

There can still be a Blood War, but here on the Prime Material, now the two types of monsters are more distinct and hopefully encountering one won't be interchangeable with an encounter with the other kind. (And, YES, in Planescape games or in games where planar politics are important, they could already feel differently. But when Fiend X showed up in a dungeon, he was pretty much interchangeable with Fiend Y.)

And I'm gratified the Succubus/Erinyes overlap is gone. I'm sure the Erinyes will return in modified form eventually. And all this can be grist for Planescape metastory.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 30, 2007)

Awesome.

This is a change I wished for in one of the 'what you want to see' threads, but thought would NEVER actually happen.

I can't stand the Great Wheel/Planescape cosmology and its odd demon/devil distinctions that tell you nothing about the creatures.  The new version sounds like exactly what I asked for: Devils = fallen angels, demons = weird awfulness.

I'm kind of curious what role the yugoloths have, though, since those two categories would seem to cover all the non-explicitly-Far-Realmsy evil outsider bases.  I'd have expected the yugos to disappear entirely in this sort of cosmology, but it seems they've been confirmed in the very same announcement.  Interesting.


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Meh.  The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that "implied setting" stuff that we've been hearing about.  Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.




Yeah, but it's fluff that will almost certainly also apply to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, any Planescape reissue they do, and any new published setting. It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.

No, I don't like this change.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Other than the potentially very interesting gelugon origin, the other changes are... horrible. I will feel free to ignore them, much as I've ignored the silly 3.x FR cosmology, but this pretty much destroys any chance of a credible 4E version of Planescape for me. 

The biggest worry for me is the changed appearance of devils, which will be reflected in the miniatures line. I can see right now that I will have to seriously reconsider my miniature purchases beginning with _Dungeons of Dread_. Luckily, most of the core devils and demons have already been issued, but I fear for my long-awaited Barbazu Trooper...

And the succubus/erinyes thing? Bloody stupid.


----------



## Av3rnus (Aug 30, 2007)

These changes seem mostly ok by me. As I recall, it was mentioned that WotC was wanting 4e to include or reflect more in the way of traditional myths, so this would make a lot of sense. I happen to really like the way that devils and demons are being distinguished in terms of appearance.

The only weird thing is his statement that the succubus and erinyes were already so similar:  the succubus is geared towards deception and control, while the erinyes is geared towards combat. I guess maybe now the succubus can be customized for whatever role you need?


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 30, 2007)

If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 30, 2007)

Not sure what you guys are worried about - it looks great to me!


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.




Yup. Just use your old fluff with the new crunch. 
And I fail to see why 1e/2e/3e "there is no difference between demons and devils, they look the same except for their alignment" was superior to 4e "devils are humanoid fallen angels, demons are abomination from the outer planes".  :\


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.



The problem is that all future products will be written with the above changes as the baseline, which means that it is highly unlikely 4E will be able to provide me with a sourcebook which deals with planar issues which is compatible with twenty years of previously published fluff. If Baator is a dead god's realm, that means that Great Wheel is either gone altogether, or changed to the point of non-recognition.

Oh, and... if this is what they are doing to devils and demons, imagine what they're doing to the four breeds of celestials. Did I say four? Hmmm... I suspect only aasimon (angels) will survive the cut unchanged.


----------



## Jer (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Hmm... my immediate reaction is that this screws with the timeline of the origin of Baator...
> 
> Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm.




I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions.  Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows".  This not not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, but it is something that needs to be taken into account for ongoing campaigns being converted to 4e.

In a theoretical Planescape 4e supplement, I would expect Baator to be a different place than the Nine Hells being talked about here.  The succubus/eriynes merger is also trivially fixed (if you need to) by saying that in the Planescape setting the succubus from the Monster Manual is called an "eriynes" in the setting and that there's this other demon monster called a succubus that it somewhat different over in the Abyss.  Personally, I'd probably prefer they just kind of sweep it under the rug and ignore it, but then I'm someone who doesn't care about playing "fast and loose" with gameworld "continuity" and other's mileage will vary.

Much like I wouldn't expect published settings to correspond to the "points of light in darkness" motif of the "implied setting" of the core rules, I don't expect published settings to slavishly follow the "fluff" that is derived from that implied setting in the Monster Manual.  What's the point of publishing different settings if they all have the same feel and the same fluff?


----------



## mhensley (Aug 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.




I'm really glad I put mine on ebay a few days ago.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And I fail to see why 1e/2e/3e "there is no difference between demons and devils, they look the same except for their alignment" was superior to 4e "devils are humanoid fallen angels, demons are abomination from the outer planes".  :\



If you can say that, I can only conclude that you have never read a single line of fluff on evil outsiders from either the Planescape setting, or the 3.x planar books (including the two Fiendish Codices).


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.



 I'm guessing the strongest reactions may be from those who were hoping for a nice fluffy new Planescape book for 4e, especially in light of Scott's awesome "Brand Manager of Fluff" thread.  

Although there is probably still some chance of a Planescape book that ignores the changes, it seems unlikely.  The succubus/erinyes thing is probably the hardest to deal with because it requires not only moving back the succubus to the demons but also recreating crunch for the erinyes.  Though I suppose it wouldn't be terribly difficult either.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> imagine what they're doing to the four breeds of celestials. Did I say four? Hmmm... I suspect only aasimon (angels) will survive the cut unchanged.




Well we've already seen an eladrin in the preview material, so I suspect we'll see the four types retained.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 30, 2007)

Good. Again, it's about time. They _are_ too similar.

Mm, steak.




			
				delericho said:
			
		

> It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.



Not if one should happen to remain a 3e DM.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 30, 2007)

_I don't like the ad hoc Ice Devils are really demons but we fudged it, so they're devils._

That's actually from the AD&D 2e Hell book.... the Ice Devils were originally rulers of a small plane that was conquered in primeval times by the devils. However, in 3e, succubi were also odd men out... fallen angels, who ended up settling in the Abyss for whatever reason and continued to breed true as a race.

I like the general sound of things... however, I don't think devils should be too human-like. I think some of them should be really strange. I think the distinction is that devils should embody "sins" or specific forms of horror, demons should just be horrific and inimical.

There is one thing about this that cheeses me off... I recently acquired and really like the two Fiendish Codices. Those books claimed they would be considered canonical going forward... well, that lasted a few months!


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Well we've already seen an eladrin in the preview material, so I suspect we'll see the four types retained.



Retained, maybe (although I am quite worried for the guardinals... and the archons may be merged with aasimon). Filling the same roles as today? Bloody unlikely.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.




Its nice when the core books don't contradict your world/campaign, especially for no good reason. 

I am getting the feeling they are doing more on the "fluff" side then they really need to. I mean, I  like some of the origin stuff done a long , long time ago (see the sahaguin in Eldritch Wizardry as an example) but the reality is that the easier it is for DMs to use these monsters (or classes, races, whatever) the better. And to much "fluff" like this may make them harder to use.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If you can say that, I can only conclude that you have never read a single line of fluff on evil outsiders from either the Planescape setting, or the 3.x planar books (including the two Fiendish Codices).



I deed. A lot. Do you have a real arguments to sustain your point of view, rather than shooting "stupid, ignorant!" ?


----------



## Jer (Aug 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it's fluff that will almost certainly also apply to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, any Planescape reissue they do, and any new published setting. It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.




Wha?  No it doesn't - that fluff is still there, ready to use any time you might want it.  I certainly intend to use both of those codexes (codexi? codecii?  Hmmm) in my games, much like I continue to mine Planescape material for ideas and neat things to do with demons/devils/yugoloths.  I don't really care what fluff they put in there - my game is still mine and I can do what I want with it.

And again, I reiterate, if Wizards puts these fluff changes into all of their settings across the board then they are dumb.  What is the point of buying a different published setting if all of their settings have the same "feel"?  For example, these changes aren't going to impact Eberron much at all because Eberron has:

* No Asmodeus
* No Nine Hells
* Not really much of a distinction between devils and demons anyway

I don't expect the feel of the published settings to change to match the "implied setting" in the core books.  If Wizards does that, they're shooting themselves in their collective feet.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 30, 2007)

I personally dig it. I never liked that the demons and devils of old could have easily been called something else.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, I certainly will miss Planescape, but these tidbits sound pretty much perfect for the Points of Light implied setting.

I really like where this is going. Except for real-world mythological deities. For whatever reason it remains the only non-starter in a campaign setting for me, but I figure I can rip them out whole cloth come 4e.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 30, 2007)

Put me in the column of liking the change. Makes more sense to me. The old categorizations were pretty haphazard anyways. This does provide a great deal more clarity, and was something I was doing on my own already. 

'Cause, despite what they write for fluff in official products, I can still re-write/re-work to fit my own campaign.


----------



## freyar (Aug 30, 2007)

Does seem like they're changing something just to change it, I'd have to agree...  and I don't see why the chaos/order conflict is obscure -- it gives some real heft to alignment.

Anyway, the erinyes/succubus merger kind of bothers me a bit.  I don't want to lose any monsters!  Besides, one thing that strikes me as ironic about getting rid of the erinyes is that they're the devil that currently originated as a fallen angel.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I deed. A lot. Do you have a real arguments to sustain your point of view, rather than shooting "stupid, ignorant!" ?



I did no such thing. However, there was a very clear distinction between the two evil outsiders in both Planescape and all 3.x books, which to me had to mean that you are unfamiliar with material on the matter.

Let's put it like this: I can sit here and quote devil/demon differences from plane-related sourcebooks for days. Can you please elaborate on your very brief point stating that you felt they were the same?


----------



## LordVyreth (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm also really annoyed at the succubus/erinyes merger.  No, they're not holding similar territory at all.  They both come from very solid real-world mythological backgrounds, they fill completely different archetypal roles (tempter versus avenger,) and while they had similar statistics in earlier versions, 3.5 deliberately split them up.  As for whether the succubus should be a devil, that depends on their purposes.  If the demons are now otherworldly horrors previously associated more directly with the Far Realms, then fine.  But arguably at least the core demons represented various states of temptation or emotional excesses that give way to evil, and in that case a humanoid demon representing lust makes perfect sense.

Speaking of which, are we even going to have a Far Realm in 4e?  Or is that still an unknown?  Either way, this change does make me nervous.  I judge a system by, among other things, how many house rules I need to implement to even start running it, and this could be my first one out of the gate, depending on how many other races get dumped in core.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 30, 2007)

I have always considered other planar creatures, such as solars, planetars, demons, and devils to be "extreme" examples of their alignments, so I think having their appearance being much more standardized among devils fits with my views. So if they go with a lot of random and even freakish physical forms and appearances for demons that will rock.

As for the "origins", I have always stuck with the origin of devils that is very widely believed in the real world. Demons, heck, the greater the variety of origin stories I have the better.


----------



## NexH (Aug 30, 2007)

> - Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.




I am wondering how many were the original devils and how long ago did this rebellion happen, since the answers to these questions could make a lot of difference in the cosmology.



> - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death.




Unless the Nine Hells in 4E are much smaller than now, I'd guess that, for some reason, Baator expanded considerably after the deity's death; the alternative implies that 4E gods are (or at least this god was) much more powerful than the current norm.



> The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.




Interesting.



> One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.




I don't see the need for this: sucubbus methods and allegiances are very different from those of the erinyes. Also, it shouldn't be too hard to put a sidebar in one of the fiendish temptress' description, indicating that you can use the same (or similar) stats for both, and describing the non-mechanical differences between them.



> - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.




Flavorful explanation for their non-humanoid appearence. But I'm intrigued: why would Asmodeus want to move against Mephistopheles?


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 30, 2007)

To clarify, I would almost be surprised if there were no fundamentalist group that latched onto the whole, " We killed God " aspect of the devils background. Yes, similar things happened in other religions, but there aren't exactly a lot of devout followers of the Olympians running around. It's like asking for a resurgence of anti-D&D movement.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

NexH said:
			
		

> Flavorful explanation for their non-humanoid appearence. But I'm intrigued: why would Asmodeus want to move against Mephistopheles?



Because Mephistopheles has tried time and again to kill Asmodeus and take his stuff (more or less openly)?


----------



## Szatany (Aug 30, 2007)

Wait, if devils are angels who betrayed their god, does it mean that in 4e all gods (including evil ones) use angels as their servants?


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 30, 2007)

_I don't see the need for this: sucubbus methods and allegiances are very different from those of the erinyes. _

I suppose the reasoning is that they only need one kind of hawt chixx0rs with bat wings. I consider that pretty weak reasoning. I mean, you can never have too much of that....

But seriously, in my campaign, I was using erinyes in their avenger role as servants of Hekate.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> To clarify, I would almost be surprised if there were no fundamentalist group that latched onto the whole, " We killed God " aspect of the devils background. Yes, similar things happened in other religions, but there aren't exactly a lot of devout followers of the Olympians running around. It's like asking for a resurgence of anti-D&D movement.




No publicity is bad publicity.


----------



## occam (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> The twisted little origin for gelugons might be a really nifty idea, but we'll see how the fluff handles this. I can be won over on this one. 'loth origin gelugons, bound by contract and chaffing against it. This could really be developed into some cool stuff. EDIT: 10 minutes later, I'm digging this one.




Me, too (provisionally, until we see the full extent of the changes).



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm. Jacobs did some really awesome material with Malcanthet and her rivals, and this change really makes moving them forward into 4th difficult, unless we want to have succubi/erinyes populating both Baator and the Abyss, having split in an ancient ideological schism (or the CE ones having been perverted by X Abyssal lord, obyrith, etc). The in-game rationalization here needs to be amazing or else this change may really, really present difficulties.




Ditto. Changes in fluff are easy enough to ignore, but crunchy overhauls are irritating.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 30, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Wait, if devils are angels who betrayed their god, does it mean that in 4e all gods (including evil ones) use angels as their servants?




I think it's implied that it was a good god. Put me in the camp of liking the change.

As for the succubus/erinyes thing, I'm not sure I really see "avenging" as a devilish trait.  Conforming to the traditional sins (Lust, in this case) seems like a more solid plan for the new devils.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 30, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Wait, if devils are angels who betrayed their god, does it mean that in 4e all gods (including evil ones) use angels as their servants?




I would like it if the deault setting had just that. Astral and/or etheral planes, elemental planes, and then just 'heavens' and 'hells'...without the Great Wheel. Save that for Planescape, but for the new vanilla D&D, all I need is angels and demons/devils.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

LordVyreth said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, are we even going to have a Far Realm in 4e?




With Cordell on the writing team, I think it's a safe assumption that the Far Realm will eventually appear in some form or another.


----------



## Aexalon (Aug 30, 2007)

On the temptresses: as much as I like the name Erinyes (greek origin, the Furies), the niche of the seductress fiend mythologically belongs to the Succubi (jewish origin, via Lilith) lock, stock and barrel.

Edit: GSHamster beat me to it.


			
				GSHamster said:
			
		

> As for the succubus/erinyes thing, I'm not sure I really see "avenging" as a devilish trait.  Conforming to the traditional sins (Lust, in this case) seems like a more solid plan for the new devils.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 30, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think it's implied that it was a good god. Put me in the camp of liking the change.



I don't think it matters. If the only way to become a devil is to betray your god (as I understood from the article), then devils don't serve any gods. Demons might, but I have a feeling that they are independant force on their own.

Another possibility is that each god's entry states what type of outsiders he commands. There are demons, slaadi, formians, yugoloths, angels, archons, and so on.


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm. Jacobs did some really awesome material with Malcanthet and her rivals, and this change really makes moving them forward into 4th difficult, unless we want to have succubi/erinyes populating both Baator and the Abyss, having split in an ancient ideological schism (or the CE ones having been perverted by X Abyssal lord, obyrith, etc). The in-game rationalization here needs to be amazing or else this change may really, really present difficulties.




Ugh.  This is the first thing I've seen than makes we want to steer far, far away from 4e.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 30, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> I don't think it matters. If the only way to become a devil is to betray your god (as I understood from the article), then devils don't serve any gods. Demons might, but I have a feeling that they are independant force on their own.
> 
> Another possibility is that each god's entry states what type of outsiders he commands. There are demons, slaadi, formians, yugoloths, angels, archons, and so on.




Does Asmodeus still rule the devils, then? Hm...


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 30, 2007)

Color me Impressed...

I wonder what other demon/devils got remixed? Pit Fiend/Balor? Imp/Quasit? 

I like the new flavor, but I am a bit saddened to see the classic era write-up go...


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 30, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I would like it if the deault setting had just that. Astral and/or etheral planes, elemental planes, and then just 'heavens' and 'hells'...without the Great Wheel. Save that for Planescape, but for the new vanilla D&D, all I need is angels and demons/devils.



Sign me up for some of this.

I certainly hope these suspicions hold water; with reduced mechanical effects for alignment I hold out hope that "angels" can represent a type of being rather than carrying the weight of alignment by implication.

Or supposing "good" and "evil" have a lot more to do with their relationship to the setting's gods than any specific behaviors...angels become "good" because they're keeping the world together in the face of devilish corruption and demonic horror, even if it means breaking a couple hundred people on the wheel in the process...alright, probably not, but I can dream.


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog-
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't like this change, not because it is a change of rules, but because it is a change in monsters. I HATE changes in monsters. I HATED the change for instance in the graoning spirits from 2.X to 3.X.

Why so ? Because if ultimately which rule set I use is not so important for me in the end, ADAPTING my HUGE libraries of adventures is WAY harder if not only the powers of the monster are different, but the actual monster coming after a name is not the same;

And if the background of the monster changes as well... well this is the worst case.

And quite frankly, contrary to some other 4.x changes that were discussed, I do not see any reasons why this one was necessary.

Anyways, I have probably a hundred or more 3.x books to read yet, and it would be a shame not to use all this stuff on my poor, poor, unsuspecting players, would it not ?

Mwahhaha !

So in any event, I will NOT convert at launch.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 30, 2007)

This strikes me as a change that would be better introduced in a new campaign setting rather than in the core books. It tosses out a lot of the very interesting demon and devil culture that has evolved in the game's loose continuity for 30 years. The change itself isn't a bad one, but it is one more thing that will alienate players of older editions.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions.  Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows".




If this is true then I'm more optimistic about 4e than ever.

Break the Great Wheel and 30 years of cosmological cruft and start anew.


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 30, 2007)

occam said:
			
		

> Ditto. Changes in fluff are easy enough to ignore, but crunchy overhauls are irritating.




With due respect, for me it is absolutely the opposite.

one man's rules is another ... oh well, let's be frank I don't like any change


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> It's like asking for a resurgence of anti-D&D movement.




*Cha-Ching*


----------



## Ry (Aug 30, 2007)

Sweet.  I'm stoked for the new devils and demons.  I just hope they put a little of that fluff in the SRD, otherwise I'll just have to make up my own anyway.


----------



## olshanski (Aug 30, 2007)

I actually don't mind what they are doing with demons and devils.

I just hope they leave Baatezu and Tanar'ri alone!


----------



## Nine Hands (Aug 30, 2007)

I like it.

At least now there is a story behind the stuff and its right in the MM not buried in loads of Planescape material.

And I am not knocking Planescape which I love dearly, but this origin at least sparked some cool ideas already and that means a good deal when it comes to D&D


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 30, 2007)

OK, I get the idea of any publicity is good publicity, but there are usually exceptions. How exactly is it that being identified as some sort of devil worshipper is good for your fellow gamer? I mean, I don't recall hearing about Trump ever insinuating that he worshipped demons for the sake of the publicity... 

Though I suppose that if angels were identified as generic servants of many different gods, it could relieve the pressure, a little.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 30, 2007)

I think these are pretty interesting changes.  I like how the murdered god's divine realm became the Nine Hells - it's like Heaven being corrupted, giving the story a really dark twist    .  And I like how devils will tend to adopt a more humanoid form - it's only a cosmetic difference, but it helps distinguish devils from their demon counterparts IMO.


----------



## (contact) (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> To clarify, I would almost be surprised if there were no fundamentalist group that latched onto the whole, " We killed God " aspect of the devils background. Yes, similar things happened in other religions, but there aren't exactly a lot of devout followers of the Olympians running around. It's like asking for a resurgence of anti-D&D movement.




Which, honestly, isn't very scary anymore.  Fundamentalists are against a lot of things, and while D&D may currently not be the rabble-rousing prod du jour, even if it becomes so, I don't see it hurting sales.

My best guess would be the baseline D&D consumer is 22-35  years old, and makes up his own mind about whether or not a D&D book is going to damage his spiritual well-being.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 30, 2007)

Irrelevant for me. 

Explanation of monsters' nature and origin is the kind of fluff which I actually enjoy reading a lot, because it can give me inspiration for writing adventures and campaigns. But at the end of the day, I'm free to pick what I like, discard the rest and make up as much fluff as I want. 

For instance, when I started gaming I was intrigued by the wacko cosmology of the great wheel and blood war. Two years later, I was bored by the wacko cosmology of the great wheel and blood war  Lately I've been assuming very different things, like Hades, Hell and Abyss being on top of each other: Hades be the entance to Hell where the souls of the damned are gathered, Hell being the eternal punishment for those souls, and Abyss being a place below Hell where mortal souls never go, but where devils or other outsiders may be sent as their own punishment.

In this new case, fine for me to say the gelugons are demons (to be honest, I do hate devils that look like insects, it makes no sense to me). Fine for me to say that Succubus are devils, but at this point I see no reason to keep the "devils are always LE" mantra. I like that Succubi tempt humans not because they want to gain a soul for hell/abyss/whatever, but "just because", which is quite CE if you ask me. 

I'm not sure about Erinyes, but I seem to remember that they are spirits of fury and vengeance and have nothing to do with tempting the mortals, and maybe they are such in D&D only because of some designers mistake/ignorance?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> I just hope they leave Baatezu and Tanar'ri alone!




They could  probably release a 4e Planescape book as a sop to the fans of the current cosmology.


----------



## (contact) (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm a long-time Planescape fan, and I love the new ideas.  I particularly like the notion that the devils are trapped in the Hells and need some mortal assistance (coughdiabolicalpactcough) to win their way free.  Love it.

One of the core conciets of the Planescape game was that whatever you thought you knew, the planes would have some more mysterious secret or deeper truth that could be revealed.

If I ran a Planescape campaign, I'd take one of two tacts:  either the new changes to the cosmology is the dark of things, and the PCs are the first of their acquaintence to discover it (adventure hook), or the new ideas are the common chant, and the PCs know the *real* dark, which is the old cosmology.

Turn the 4e rollout in to an adventure.


----------



## (contact) (Aug 30, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Lately I've been assuming very different things, like Hades, Hell and Abyss being on top of each other: Hades be the entance to Hell where the souls of the damned are gathered, Hell being the eternal punishment for those souls, and Abyss being a place below Hell where mortal souls never go, but where devils or other outsiders may be sent as their own punishment.




That's great fluff, and it turns the evil planes into a Gygaxian dungeon; the lower you go, the worse it gets.


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> They could  probably release a 4e Planescape book as a sop to the fans of the current cosmology.




Yeah, they could.

But it seems kind of pointless to have to reprint the statistics for succubi and whatever other demons and devils they retcon to fit where they've been for 30+ years.

And since it's one campaign setting per year, and FR is first and Eberron second, the first chance these fans can be satisfied is 2010.

This is a bad, bad move.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> This is a bad, bad move.




For some. A good, good one for others.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year.



Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the point?  They're not trying to reconcile with material already out there, they're trying to clean up material already out there and make it make more sense.

I'm with Moog---I really dislike the Great Wheel, and as far as I'm concerned in my campaign, a fiend is a fiend is a fiend, and I make no distinction between devils, demons, yugs, oni, or any other variety.  So I'm actually cool with them creating a reason for me to care about the distinction, because previously I never have.


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

The big positive for me here is he never uses the words Baator or Baatezu. I'm hoping we're back to just calling devils devils and the Nine Hells the Nine Hells.

The succubus/erinyes thing in there is really the only thing that bothers me, mostly because of the impact on the whole Demonomicon series (and the Savage Tide Adventure Path.)


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> For some. A good, good one for others.




I'm failing to see how the benefits of this move can possibly outweigh the drawbacks.

Retconning creatures that have belonged to a specific type since 1e (or pre-1e) causes numerous problems for anyone wishing to continue campaigns or use materials from past editions.

This is a huge blow to backward compatibility.   The Fiendish Codices and Demonomicon series of articles (both wildly popular and well-respected) have just been rendered flawed for reference in 4e.

I don't mind changes to the origin, or what-have-you, but changing creature types is problematic.   Why not just leave them out and create something new, achieving the same end result without any of the resulting chaos?   Telling me that succubi won't be included will disappoint me, but I can still hold out hope that they will be added later or can convert them myself.   Telling me succubi are now devils is far more work to undo.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 30, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> However, I felt a disturbance in the force, as if millions of Planescape's fan suddenly cried in horror...




This is just the first of many disturbances in the force which will be caused by the screams of Planescape fans in regards to the changes that are being made in 4e.  I'm expecting that the next retconn would involve Lady of Pain or Sigil itself.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions.  Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows".



In fact, in one of the GenCon interviews one of the main designers stated they were told to design the game without being concerned about breaking the "sacred cows."  Obviously that included the "profane cows."



			
				Jer said:
			
		

> For example, these changes aren't going to impact Eberron much at all because Eberron has:
> 
> * No Asmodeus
> * No Nine Hells
> * Not really much of a distinction between devils and demons anyway




Plus, WotC has avoided any serious coverage of the planes in Eberron.  We have Keith giving his point of view, but that's not "canon" and we might end up with a different point of view when we see such a book.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 30, 2007)

So...is Graz'zt a demon or devil now? Because he certainly takes a humanoid appearance...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 30, 2007)

I think they are setting down the pawns so that they will act in a way to spur interesting things and adventures happen to the PCs.

Devils look humanoid so that they may make infernal deals with PCs and plot-NPCs Faust-style. (Whitout provoking initiative.)

Demons look horrible and strange so that they can scare the living daylights out of the players. (So to invite gratuitous viloence.)

I'll bet we'll see more of these changes. I.e. In the Points of Light implied setting heavy taxes are commonly exerted on the populace. Why? So that the PCs can play Robin Hood. Angels will be real powerful but they will be restrained from meddling in the Prime Material due to some hokey contract. Why? So that they must ask PCs to do the work for them.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't mind any changes to devils or demons myself. I never liked Great Wheel cosmology, and I always thought the demon/devil distinction as it stood was very strange. This change makes it move a bit closer to making sense. Also, I am glad the Erinyes has been folded into the Succubus. The Erinyes of myth is _nothing_ like its classic D&D version. The ones of Greek myth are not even necessarily evil, let alone demonic or devilish, and they certainly arn't beautiful devil women with wings. They are monsterous women with beastial faces.

However I can't say that I really like this article as a whole. It simply does not go far enough. It implies the continuation of the Great Wheel as core, which seriously undermines the wonderful genericness of their "Points of Light" concept. It continues the highly confused and flawed "Polyhteism, except every god has angels serving him and acts like a Monotheistic deity" nonsense that has filled D&D so far.

I would prefer it if they just abandoned all the specifics like the Nine Hells or background story for the origins of demons entirely, and left the Monster Manual as generic and setting-free as possible. In fact, I would prefer it if there was no assumption of other planes and planehopping in the core books.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> To clarify, I would almost be surprised if there were no fundamentalist group that latched onto the whole, " We killed God " aspect of the devils background. Yes, similar things happened in other religions, but there aren't exactly a lot of devout followers of the Olympians running around. It's like asking for a resurgence of anti-D&D movement.




Please don't ascribe actions to overly jumpy Christians.  The devils killed their god. They didn't kill God.  Someone who can't make that distinction is not likely to need to go this far into the books to find better stuff to object to.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 30, 2007)

Great Wheel now belongs to Greyhawk.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Cha-Ching*




Is it on purpose?


----------



## Gez (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I did no such thing. However, there was a very clear distinction between the two evil outsiders in both Planescape and all 3.x books, which to me had to mean that you are unfamiliar with material on the matter.




Yeah, in function but not in form. There were no real reason why most fiends looked how they looked, and unless you knew the specific type of fiend you couldn't say, on seeing one, if it was a tanar'ri, yugoloth, baatezu, or other miscellaneous fiend family.

In short, if you take a, say, Paelirion, should that be a devil or a demon? Or maybe a daemon? A particularly ugly Slaad?


----------



## pogre (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the point? [commenting on someone else's complaint about change]  They're not trying to reconcile with material already out there, they're trying to clean up material already out there and make it make more sense.
> 
> I'm with Moog---I really dislike the Great Wheel, and as far as I'm concerned in my campaign, a fiend is a fiend is a fiend, and I make no distinction between devils, demons, yugs, oni, or any other variety.  So I'm actually cool with them creating a reason for me to care about the distinction, because previously I never have.




I'm with Moog and Hobo.

There is nothing stopping WOTC with creating a Planescape setting using the old assumptions of that setting and reintroducing erinyes, etc.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Please don't ascribe actions to overly jumpy Christians.  The devils killed their god. They didn't kill God.  Someone who can't make that distinction is not likely to need to go this far into the books to find better stuff to object to.




Indeed, this reminds me of the first article on the Nine Hells that had stats for Satan/Lucifer.  The difference is that in this version they killed him instead of Asmodeus taking over after "driving him off."


----------



## StarFyre (Aug 30, 2007)

*ugh*

I do not like these changes at all.

But, since I use basically the planescape styled cosmology of all the game worlds, universe, far realm, etc...I can deal with it. Will just convert (the 3.5E versions over to 4E and give them whatever weapons i think they should have...ie. balor a vorpal sword and whip, marilith - 6 magical weapons, pit fiend nothing unless it really wants one, etc).

Also, i preffered how tanar'ri were created by the raw essence of chaos/magic while the baatezu were created from teh blood as asmodeus when he fell.

Sanjay


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

pogre said:
			
		

> I'm with Moog and Hobo.
> 
> There is nothing stopping WOTC with creating a Planescape setting using the old assumptions of that setting and reintroducing erinyes, etc.




And providing stats for succubi and other demons and devils "retconned" into different, conflicting types?   Doesn't that fly in the face of the "simplification" process to have two different monster entries for the same exact creatures?

Like I posted upthread, the earliest we can expect anything Planescape-related is 2010.

Not cool.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 30, 2007)

I wonder if alignment is getting a real overhaul. The big difference between devils and demons was the law-chaos spectrum. Planar fluff aside, allow me this for brevity, there is a new paradigm in town. If the new morality is shades of grey, you might need to redefine some iconic alignment creatures. Think of the modrons! The Modrons!


----------



## sckeener (Aug 30, 2007)

I think I would have had less of a problem if they had made the erinyes and the succubus a yugoloth that played/manipulated everyone.

I don't like the fallen angel aspect; however as has been pointed out several myths include such an instance.  

Before I worry too much, I'd like to find out what is happening to alignment.  If alignment has been changed greatly then the whole great wheel picture is changed anyway.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Think of the modrons! The Modrons!



Fat chance of that, since Andy Collins hates modrons.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't think I like much of what I've seen of 4e core 'fluff'; I'm hoping that stays out of my Eberron because 4e 'crunch' sounds pretty good.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 30, 2007)

Not sure how I feel, other than I like the fact that the planes had different types of outsiders associated with them. Also, some demon lord types should have the appearance of starting/being humanoid, shouldn't they? Some demons should be corrupted/fallen humans that attained great power, shouldn't they? I really, really like the fluff in both the recent demon and devil books, two very well received books, I believe. Why change that fluff?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Fat chance of that, since Andy Collins hates modrons.




Only according to Kanye West.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 30, 2007)

A return to Milton for inspiration? Yes, please.


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> I'm failing to see how the benefits of this move can possibly outweigh the drawbacks.
> 
> Retconning creatures that have belonged to a specific type since 1e (or pre-1e) causes numerous problems for anyone wishing to continue campaigns or use materials from past editions.
> 
> ...



I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.




Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work.   First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.   You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up.  If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed.  If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed.    Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.


----------



## Simplicity (Aug 30, 2007)

It almost seems like the Wizards folks are trying to anger their fans.
Buh-bye Greyhawk.
Don't convert, but that's what we're doing.
We're going to focus on fluff books between now and 4e, but don't count on any of that fluff being accurate because we're throwing it all out with the new edition.

Coming out with the Fiendish Codex and then immediately invalidating the whole thing is kind of a strange thing to do...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, I'll add my two cents...

The notion of "devils tend to look more human, where demons tend to look more monstrous" is something I though about a while ago, and prefer, but never thought I'd see. I'm glad I get to, now. 

And honestly, I'm fine with the new background for devils. I think it's more interesting, and as someone else said, if some people can't tell the difference between the death of one fictional god from a pagan pantheon and an insult against real-world "God," they're going to find stuff in the game to object to no matter what.

As far as questions like "Will Graz'zt still be a demon?" I'm pretty sure the article said that the "devils look more human, demons don't" was a _tendency_ not a hard-and-fast rule.

And frankly, I really don't see how this screws _too much_ with ongoing stories. Sure, if the origins of the devils was vital to your story, that's a problem, but other than that, they still occupy the same basic roll in the multiverse that they used to.

I can see how the rolling of succubi and erinyes into one could impact some folk, though.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I can see how the rolling of succubi and erinyes into one could impact some folk, though.




It means one less almost-naked demon picture in the monster manual


----------



## Anthraxus (Aug 30, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> In fact, in one of the GenCon interviews one of the main designers stated they were told to design the game without being concerned about breaking the "sacred cows."  Obviously that included the "profane cows."




I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20.  :\


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I wonder if alignment is getting a real overhaul. The big difference between devils and demons was the law-chaos spectrum. Planar fluff aside, allow me this for brevity, there is a new paradigm in town. If the new morality is shades of grey, you might need to redefine some iconic alignment creatures. Think of the modrons! The Modrons!



I asked about Alignment at the 4e seminar at Gencon, and that, coupled with the devils article, is leading me to believe that 4e won't have Alignments.  Which wouldn't be a big loss IMO, it'll just be interesting to see how they do things like paladins (who, from what I have heard, can serve Asmodeus in the new game).


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> It means one less almost-naked demon picture in the monster manual




BASTARDS!!!!


On a more serious note, there are several things I'm sure I'll port from 4.0 into my 3.5 game....


...this change is not one of them.   

+1 for v3.5!


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work.   First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.




I doubt "type" will exist in 4e. Remember what they said about monster design : it will all be about what the monster is supposed to do, not about what it is supposed to be.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 30, 2007)

Are they TRYING to make 4e as unappealing to long-time gamers as possible? Granted, in my games the succubus and Erinyes are both daughters of night hags, by demon and devil fathers respectively.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 30, 2007)

Anthraxus said:
			
		

> I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20.  :\



Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 30, 2007)

I am a HUGE fan of this change.

I think this partly is the outcome of rethinking the alignment system. If there aren't planar niches reserved in the celestial realms for each alignment, or blending thereof (because alignment might work differently that the planes as we know them are arranged), the designers have more freedom to make alterations. Not only that, it _may_ be necessary to clean things up to make some sort of _NEW_ sense according to the new alignment model.

Just some musings. I love this.


----------



## Terraism (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.



Okay, but note this - the new stuff is, as you've said, geared to folk who don't have the background to pull that off.  Meaning that they're likely not familiar with the Planescape/Great Wheel mythos and _don't care about it_.  So it's only a real blow to them if the mythos is demonstrably, factually, better than the new, easy-to-pick-up-devils-as-fallen-angels fluff.  And it's obviously not, given the number of folk in this thread alone who like it.

For what it's worth, I'm a huge Planescape fan - in a Planescape game.  For more earthbound D&D games, I hate the idea of the Great Wheel - it's only appropriate, I think, in a specific context.  So I'm happy that the default - primebound games - is getting a simpler, more accessible system.


----------



## Av3rnus (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work.   First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.   You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up.  If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed.  If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed.    Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.




Do we know if devils and demons will actually be distinct creature types? Given what's been said about alignments in 4e, I'm doubting that there will be much - if any - difference between lawful evil outsiders and chaotic evil outsiders in terms of stats or game mechanics. I'm guessing the distinction will pretty much be all fluff and no crunch (which would work just fine for me).


----------



## timbannock (Aug 30, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions.  Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows".  This not not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, but it is something that needs to be taken into account for ongoing campaigns being converted to 4e.
> 
> In a theoretical Planescape 4e supplement, I would expect Baator to be a different place than the Nine Hells being talked about here.  The succubus/eriynes merger is also trivially fixed (if you need to) by saying that in the Planescape setting the succubus from the Monster Manual is called an "eriynes" in the setting and that there's this other demon monster called a succubus that it somewhat different over in the Abyss.  Personally, I'd probably prefer they just kind of sweep it under the rug and ignore it, but then I'm someone who doesn't care about playing "fast and loose" with gameworld "continuity" and other's mileage will vary.
> 
> Much like I wouldn't expect published settings to correspond to the "points of light in darkness" motif of the "implied setting" of the core rules, I don't expect published settings to slavishly follow the "fluff" that is derived from that implied setting in the Monster Manual.  What's the point of publishing different settings if they all have the same feel and the same fluff?





True.

Getting rid of the sacred cows in the rules is one thing.  A new edition is invariably going to cause some "issues" in conversion.  Converting rules is easy to some, annoying to others, but not impossible.

But changing the fluff drastically?  That's potentially bigger than changing the rules.  Now, when a pre-4E "grognard" runs a campaign with new players, it's not just a couple rules tweaks in their "house rules" document.  It's no pages and pages of "my planar cosmology is this way, my devils are this way, my demons are another way" etc.

I like taking things in new directions, but this definitely seems like material you should change in a campaign setting supplement, not in the core rulebooks.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 30, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?




Yeah, I'm really not getting the level of anger over this from some people. Objecting to the change, yes, but to find it so utterly alienating?   

And it's not like this is the first time the origins of devils have changed in the game. The Planescape origin, from 2E, was _new_. 1E didn't really have a default, but the implied origins from the old Dragon articles certainly didn't match up with the Planescape material.

As for alignment, the word from the GenCon seminar was that it would exist, but not as we know it, and would no real _mechanical_ impact on the game.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 30, 2007)

Anthraxus said:
			
		

> I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20.  :\



There's been other cosmology fluff out there. I, for instance, like the BECMI planes model. In fact, this new direction along with the "points of light" setting assumptions, feels like WotC is taking some strong pointers from the BECMI days. I'm not saying Mystara the setting, but rather the BECMI rules boxes themselves.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 30, 2007)

Overall I'm intrigued by those ideas. Sure, they contradict previous material, but this just means that for any given game, I have more background choices... after all, I usually kept the para and quasi elemental planes in my 3e games.

I'm only puzzled about the deal with Erinyes. As others have already pointed out they are spirits of vengeance. In the _Oresteia_ by *Aeschylus*, Orestes is tormented by the Erinyes for the murder of his mother Clytemnestra.


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> Okay, but note this - the new stuff is, as you've said, geared to folk who don't have the background to pull that off.  Meaning that they're likely not familiar with the Planescape/Great Wheel mythos and _don't care about it_.  So it's only a real blow to them if the mythos is demonstrably, factually, better than the new, easy-to-pick-up-devils-as-fallen-angels fluff.  And it's obviously not, given the number of folk in this thread alone who like it.




I was actually referring to simplifying the "crunch" bits, not the flavor background.

I see many cries for simplification from long-time gamers on the boards, but I'd wager most of them wouldn't like the long-running flavor thrown out to achieve it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work.   First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.   You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up.  If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed.  If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed.    Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.



Nah, you don't have to do any of that.  Use the stats you have and don't worry about the type matching up.  Why does that matter?  Fluff is free.


----------



## heirodule (Aug 30, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that demons and devils are no longer bound to a specific alignment? After all, to say that all lawful evil planars are humanoids while all the chaotic ones cannot be is rather rigid.
> 
> Likewise, the poor succubus shouldn't lose chaotic evil status just to fit into this new archetyping game.




Agreed. Its rather chaotic to undermine the institution of marriage by seduction. Seriously.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 30, 2007)

Av3rnus said:
			
		

> Do we know if devils and demons will actually be distinct creature types? Given what's been said about alignments in 4e, I'm doubting that there will be much - if any - difference between lawful evil outsiders and chaotic evil outsiders in terms of stats or game mechanics. I'm guessing the distinction will pretty much be all fluff and no crunch (which would work just fine for me).



I'm left with the opposite impression from the article; devils are called out as being generally humanoid, usually fighting with weapons, and often wearing armor. Which suggests to me, given the care with which releases are worded, that demons are typically non-humanoid, or at least monstrously different if so shaped, and more reliant on their own natural weapons and physiology for combat.


----------



## Terraism (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> I see many cries for simplification from long-time gamers on the boards, but I'd wager most of them wouldn't like the long-running flavor thrown out to achieve it.



I honestly don't think that D&D's legacy of lore and cut-and-paste, wedge-the-square-peg-into-the-round-hole mythos actually _does_ do the game any favours.  In fact, I think it's quite the opposite - that it alienates, or at least confuses, newcomers.  So, for my part, yes.  Throw the 30 years of flavour out the window - those of us who want it can put it back in, and it makes the game more accessible.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> Throw the 30 years of flavour out the window - those of us who want it can put it back in, and it makes the game more accessible.




That's all I'm asking for---a clean slate.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 30, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think that D&D's legacy of lore and cut-and-paste, wedge-the-square-peg-into-the-round-hole mythos actually _does_ do the game any favours.  In fact, I think it's quite the opposite - that it alienates, or at least confuses, newcomers.  So, for my part, yes.  Throw the 30 years of flavour out the window - those of us who want it can put it back in, and it makes the game more accessible.



So, to borrow from Marvel comics, 4e is the "Ultimate" D&D cosmology?


----------



## heirodule (Aug 30, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I don't like having races who are "evil by birth" in my games (smacks of too much racism to me), but a group of beings who are supposed to be the true "incarnations of evil"?  That's a set of villains I can sink my teeth into.




I never get this. It seems to me you just said the same thing twice. You don't like naturally evil intelligent creatures except when you do.


----------



## Shade (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> So, to borrow from Marvel comics, 4e is the "Ultimate" D&D cosmology?




More like the "What if...?" cosmology.   :\


----------



## Terraism (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> So, to borrow from Marvel comics, 4e is the "Ultimate" D&D cosmology?



I don't really follow comics all that closely, but if that's got anything to do with the Joss Whedon ones, sure!  

In more seriousness, I'm guessing that was a content/history reboot?  In that case, sure.  The thing that baffles me is the idea that this change is going to carry over into published settings apart from the core - the presence of pseudo-Greyhawk deities in the 3x PHB certainly didn't drop Vecna, Heironeous, or Kord into Eberron and the Forgotten Realms, after all.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> So, to borrow from Marvel comics, 4e is the "Ultimate" D&D cosmology?




It could be the "Ultimate" cosmology, the "New Millenium" cosmology, or conceivably, the "Highlander II" cosmology.


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Overall I'm intrigued by those ideas. Sure, they contradict previous material, but this just means that for any given game, I have more background choices... after all, I usually kept the para and quasi elemental planes in my 3e games.
> 
> I'm only puzzled about the deal with Erinyes. As others have already pointed out they are spirits of vengeance. In the _Oresteia_ by *Aeschylus*, Orestes is tormented by the Erinyes for the murder of his mother Clytemnestra.




Mythologically yes. In practice in D&D they seem to me to have been used mostly as less sneaky analogues to the succubus.


----------



## Oldtimer (Aug 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> It's cutting a bit too close to real religions for me.



And it's not like D&D hasn't been chopping up real religions for many years?

Zeus, Poseidon, Apollon, et al, belonged to a very real religion.

Odin, Thor, Freya, et al, still do. I've even heard rumors that Thor will make it into 4e...

D&D has always been stealing ideas from human myths. What is new? I'm sure the religions will survive.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Merging succubi and erinyes is a mistake. A really bad mistake. I can't immediately see how to reconcile this with the material already out there, and even produced in the past year. Hmm. Jacobs did some really awesome material with Malcanthet and her rivals, and this change really makes moving them forward into 4th difficult, unless we want to have succubi/erinyes populating both Baator and the Abyss, having split in an ancient ideological schism (or the CE ones having been perverted by X Abyssal lord, obyrith, etc). The in-game rationalization here needs to be amazing or else this change may really, really present difficulties.



Yeah, I think the succubi/erinyes issue is the one that bothers me the most. If they seem too similar then work on a way to make them more unique, don't just lump them together and call it done. I suppose pit fiends and balors are probably easily combined as well. I can probably list quite a number of "very similar" classics that would get plenty of people up in arms.

Heck, most of the dragons are all pretty similar just different breath weapons, right? 

I would *greatly* prefer not lumping those two together, or at the very least not shifting succubi over to being a devil to fit a rule that "devils look human, demons look weird". While that's a fine rule in general, I think moving the succubi over is taking it a bit too far and is a mechanic change that outright contradicts decades of fluff. It would be far more interesting to keep both but work to make them unique and different. Yeah, succubi don't look like freaky weird monsters, but how are they more chaotic/demonic in the actions and abilities and how are erinyes more lawful/devilish? Make them interesting, don't just lump them together because they happen to fit the same stereotype!


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 30, 2007)

I think it's safe to say this edition is not aimed at people for whom the decades of fluff are a priority.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And it's not like this is the first time the origins of devils have changed in the game. The Planescape origin, from 2E, was _new_. 1E didn't really have a default, but the implied origins from the old Dragon articles certainly didn't match up with the Planescape material.




As you said, 1e didn't have an origin for the fiends, or any of the outsiders. Heck it didn't even have eladrins or guardinals at all, and it didn't have archons till near the end of its run in an appendix in the 1e MotP. 2e's origin myths were the first of their kind, there wasn't anything before them that they really needed to match up with in terms of origin stories, and even with changes and variations on those during 2e, and continuing on in 3e, it's still been very possible to incorporate them all into a working model of planar history and pre-history (as FC:I, FC:II, and various pieces in Dragon and Dungeon have shown).

From what little we had from Rich Baker's blog, the potential seems to exist to have some of the changes be irreconcialable with those models, or portions of those models. It's a real shame that FC:II's take, and potentially FC:I, some demonomicon material, and associated material in Dragon/Dungeon is going to stand at odds with this alluded 4e dynamic.

Now good writing can reconcile much of this, or present it in such a way to make the changes and the previous material of equally questionable veracity (ie in-game myth, unreliable sources, etc), but given 3e's core books being stripped of virtually any real in-depth flavor text, this isn't a sure thing. Ideally 4e may abandon the design wasteland of early/mid 3e flavor text, and actually give us depth and detail in core books, or even ecology material alongside monsters. This isn't certain yet which way it'll go, but we shall see.

And as an aside, that primordial 1e article "politics of hell" wasn't intended to show an origin for the devils of D&D, and it openly said it was not intended to be considered canonical (with an archdevil as "ambassador to the USA", etc etc). If you're referring to Greenwood's articles later on, I don't recall any real implied origin therein. It was all pretty sparse.


----------



## BluWolf (Aug 30, 2007)

I like the idea because although I have seen some very nice attempts to "explain" the menagrie of things we call infernal I have always felt kit-bash peices show through the veneer. Never a fan of the blood war.

It needs to be paired down and made more sense of. Although, I will admit, that is my aesthitic.

In the end I don't think it really matters. I mean how many people REALLY use all 478 different devils or demons.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Aug 30, 2007)

NexH said:
			
		

> Unless the Nine Hells in 4E are much smaller than now, I'd guess that, for some reason, Baator expanded considerably after the deity's death; the alternative implies that 4E gods are (or at least this god was) much more powerful than the current norm.



I will be interested to see the details of this backstory.

Personally, were I to use this in a campaign, the god would have been an extremely LG deity who snapped and began killing other deities (primarily neutral and other good deities) that did not measure up to his high standards.  His angelic servants, horrified at his actions, realized eventually that they were the only ones who could stand up against this perversion of justice and finally mustered up the courage and power to move against him, though not before he had slain eight other deities and absorbed their realms into his own.


----------



## olshanski (Aug 30, 2007)

(contact) said:
			
		

> If I ran a Planescape campaign, I'd take one of two tacts:  either the new changes to the cosmology is the dark of things, and the PCs are the first of their acquaintence to discover it (adventure hook), or the new ideas are the common chant, and the PCs know the *real* dark, which is the old cosmology.




As a long time fan of planescape, what I really liked was that there were always more powerful creatures around, most of them were right in your face. Many encounters had to be solved with wits or negotiation rather than brute force:

I am referring especially to the published adventures "Endless Staircase", "Dead Gods" and "Great Modron March".

The slang, on the other hand, made me want to punch someone in the yarbles.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 30, 2007)

The Deomonicom articles in Dragon are some of the best fluff of recent/any years of D&D. This post implies things are changing to put much of that story/fluff out of context with the new rules (not the fluff, but the actual design of monsters and other possible rule changes). That, to me, is disappointing. I don't need the blood war, I don't need Planescape, but I really, really like the Abyss/Hell/Demon/Devil mythology implied by the current rules.


----------



## Seeten (Aug 30, 2007)

I like this quite a bit.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 30, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> And it's not like D&D hasn't been chopping up real religions for many years?
> 
> Zeus, Poseidon, Apollon, et al, belonged to a very real religion.
> 
> ...




I just find it lazy is all.  How about stop stealing from known religious and make up your own bs.


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> To clarify, I would almost be surprised if there were no fundamentalist group that latched onto the whole, " We killed God " aspect of the devils background.




It's going to be a fairly small piece of text tucked away in the Monster Manual. Do you _really_ think the D&D haters are going to be that familiar with the books? The mere _presence_ of demons and devils in the game is enough for them.

In any case, WotC are quite rightly not designing to try to appease the anti-D&D crowd - it's a lost cause quite frankly. The people who hate the game will hate the game even if it becomes "My Little Pony: the RPG".

IMO, there is one section of 'religious folk' whom WotC should be concerned about, and that's the segment who are _also_ gamers. As long as they don't drive them (okay, us) away, then they're okay.


----------



## Benben (Aug 30, 2007)

Oh yeah!  This is excellent!  It removes the order/chaos division from the heralds of evil!

Now if they can make an interesting conflict between the heralds of chaos and order then I'll be even happier.


----------



## RichGreen (Aug 30, 2007)

As a long-time Planescape fan and recent fan of FCI and FCII, I'm not keen. However, my wife always gets demons and devils muddled up so maybe Rich has a point.....

I'm not sure how much I like this "points of light" concept if it means playing fast and loose with 30 years of extraplanar continuity!

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I just find it lazy is all.  How about stop stealing from known religious and make up your own bs.




Agreed.

Similarly, rather than simply continue with decades of bloated and thoroughly explored canon, I would like the 4e team to make up their own from scratch.

Ditch the Abyss and the Nine Hells and all that jazz. Just give us Hell and go from there.


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2007)

*About Interchangeable Demon/Devil encounters*



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> ...hopefully encountering one won't be interchangeable with an encounter with the other kind...




There is another (IMO better) way to ensure that those encounters are not interchangeable - put a usage note in the MM about the two monsters, and lay out different roles for the two. What's more, place Demons and Devils into different niches.

To use the monster categories I saw once in a Design and Development column, Devil should basically be assigned as Masterminds. Therefore, they should be individually more powerful than the corresponding Demon, but should also be much more likely to be encountered alone. By contrast, the Demons basically fit in the Brute category.

Amongst the changes, remove the ability to summon help from Devil write-ups. However, you conversely give them a number of powers/feats that allow them to work better with minions - perhaps an Improved Flank feat, or Aura powers similar to those of the Dragon Shaman. And definately give them a number of non-combat abilities to attract and control minions in the mortal sphere.

Demons, by contrast, are an undisciplined mob, and so have no such ability to coordinate their actions.

As a result of this, and in 3e terms, perhaps an appropriate encounter for a 20th level party would be either a CR 22 Pit Fiend _or_ a CR 18 Balor and his retinue of half a dozen Glabrezu demons.

In addition, you note that the two categories of creatures have different campaign roles - 90% of the time, an encounter with demons is just an encounter with demons; they've probably been summoned by an infernalist to do his evil bidding. By contrast, if you encounter a Devil, it's either because you've just fought your way through several waves of his cultists/minions, or because he's working for some higher devil in a deeper infernal plot... or most likely both.

Now, tell me that those two are not completely different in flavour and usage. And I didn't negate hundreds of pages of published lore to do it, either.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 30, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Mythologically yes. In practice in D&D they seem to me to have been used mostly as less sneaky analogues to the succubus.



Well, then given the sweeping changes that are being enacted, instead of eliminating the Erinyes they could have restored it to its proper role...


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Ditch the Abyss and the Nine Hells and all that jazz. Just give us Hell and go from there.




In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?


----------



## Voadam (Aug 30, 2007)

What demons and devils besides succubi and erinyes do you consider humanoid looking?

Tieflings? half of a marilith? Arch devils from 1e (except geryon)? Lolth, Grazz't, etc.? Chain devils. Imps? What about quasits?

Do they just mean they have hands and a head so pit fiends count?

Many devils are pretty monstrous, horned, lemures, pit fiends, barbed devils, bone devils, hellcats, even bearded devils.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

freyar said:
			
		

> Does seem like they're changing something just to change it, I'd have to agree...  and I don't see why the chaos/order conflict is obscure -- it gives some real heft to alignment.



Chaos/Order is absolutely obscure unless you're one of an increasingly aging pool of Elric readers. Given the number of alignment threads here over the years, I'd say it's fair to say a lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around it, especially when, between devils and demons, they're both bad guys whose primary issue boils down to "you should be MY kind of bad."


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Well, then given the sweeping changes that are being enacted, instead of eliminating the Erinyes they could have restored it to its proper role...




Well, by removing it from the roster of evil outsiders, they actually have the opportunity to do this, by designing from scratch a creature that more faithfully matches the original mythology, in a future product. They may or may not end up doing so, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it. The erinyes should fill a role similar to the inevitables, if anything.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I did no such thing. However, there was a very clear distinction between the two evil outsiders in both Planescape and all 3.x books, which to me had to mean that you are unfamiliar with material on the matter.



It was never clear in the MM, in any edition. One shouldn't be required to shell out $30-$100 more just to understand something in the MM. If it's not clear in the base description, that's a failure of execution at that point.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?



To be honest, I am pretty sure I saw him post in several threads that he has no interest whatsoever in D&D, but 4E may be to his liking. In other words, he is cheering for WotC to basically kill whatever it is that makes the essence of D&D and publish a totally new RPG under the banner.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I suppose the reasoning is that they only need one kind of hawt chixx0rs with bat wings. I consider that pretty weak reasoning.



Why? There's only so much space in the MM. Have one hot chick fiend and save the other for a supplement.

They're already doing it to gnomes, after all.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, if monster creation is really as easy as has been said, I guess I can easily switch the succubus' alignment back to "demon," and create an 'artillery' role devil and name it the erinyes week 1. If I'm able to create monsters in 3.X, that should be easy, no?



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> Oh, and... if this is what they are doing to devils and demons, imagine what they're doing to the four breeds of celestials. Did I say four? Hmmm... I suspect only aasimon (angels) will survive the cut unchanged.



Considering hat this is apparently a consolidation based on appearances, I imagine that nothing much will change for most celestials, as they alredy have their unique appearances - guardinals with the animal appearance, eladrin with their fey-and-energy dual nature, angels as the archetypical winged humans... archons seem about the only ones that are in much danger, sharing some appearances that are also occupied by the other celestials. I'd expect that the holy light/fire aspect would be the one that would be played up (lantern archon, sword archon, and I believe I heard something about a fire archon?), though an equipment-based aspect may be possible as well (trumpet archon, throne archon, hammer archon).


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was never clear in the MM, in any edition. One shouldn't be required to shell out $30-$100 more just to understand something in the MM. If it's not clear in the base description, that's a failure of execution at that point.



So, instead of adding three sentences for clarification (devils are blah blah blah they fight for blah blah blah and their tactics are usually blah blah blah; demons are blah blah blah, they fight for blah blah blah and they usually don't use any tactics whatsoever) they are "redesigning" the creatures to the point of nonrecognition?

I think I know what the main issue here is: pride. The new designers and developers want to leave their mark on the game NO MATTER THE COST, having seen how Monte Cook gained a near-divine status (from some people) after his work on 3E. They crave recognition, and they figured the best way to get it is to be controversial. It's perfectly understandable, but I don't have to like it.


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

Re: that mention of the ice devil as a yugoloth race, that's cool plot-wise. But man, I really wish they'd get rid of the word 'yugoloth'. How about just calling the NE guys 'fiends' as long as we're shaking up the terminology!


----------



## Sammael (Aug 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> They're already doing it to gnomes, after all.



No, they're not. Gnomes are going to be in the first Monster Manual. The fact that they won't be in the first PH doesn't mean they won't be a playable race. In fact, I am fairly positive they will be presented as a playable race in the FR Player's Guide (due out after the 4E FRCS, probably in September).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

It should be noted that this creates a big opening (and perhaps demand) for Green Ronin or perhaps Paizo to do a 4E OGL Book of Fiends.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> So, instead of adding three sentences for clarification (devils are blah blah blah they fight for blah blah blah and their tactics are usually blah blah blah; demons are blah blah blah, they fight for blah blah blah and they usually don't use any tactics whatsoever) they are "redesigning" the creatures to the point of nonrecognition?



Instead of slapping a coat of paint on an old house, they're doing a full remodel. It's been 30 years. It's worth taking a long hard look at what's come before and deciding if it all needs to stay.



> I think I know what the main issue here is: pride.  The new designers and developers want to leave their mark on the game NO MATTER THE COST, having seen how Monte Cook gained a near-divine status (from some people) after his work on 3E. They crave recognition, and they figured the best way to get it is to be controversial. It's perfectly understandable, but I don't have to like it.



Let's not ascribe this sort of stuff to the developers, who are actual real people who read this board and who don't need to have personal shots taken at them.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> To be honest, I am pretty sure I saw him post in several threads that he has no interest whatsoever in D&D, but 4E may be to his liking. In other words, he is cheering for WotC to basically kill whatever it is that makes the essence of D&D and publish a totally new RPG under the banner.





> I think I know what the main issue here is: pride. The new designers and developers want to leave their mark on the game NO MATTER THE COST, having seen how Monte Cook gained a near-divine status (from some people) after his work on 3E. They crave recognition, and they figured the best way to get it is to be controversial. It's perfectly understandable, but I don't have to like it.



How about you don't ascribe motives to people, just because you don't agree with them? 

It's okay to disagree, folks; just don't be a jerk about it when someone posts something that is antithetical to your own preference. And don't make claims about other members ("they crave recognition") that are insulting and unproven.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In fact, I am fairly positive they will be presented as a playable race in the FR Player's Guide (due out after the 4E FRCS, probably in September).



Citation?

Because at this moment, I haven't seen anything from WotC that says what "soon" means for gnomes getting a full write-up, which suggests to me that they haven't decided yet.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Cha-Ching*




Yeah, one would almost think they were looking to piss off some bible belt people. Free Press FTW? A desperate try to make DnD cool in the eyes of the younger generation? Either way, I definitely like it


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?




Despite your particular predilections, I'm not sure how getting rid of the Planescape cosmology and backstory has *anything* at all to do with whether or not something is D&D.

I'm a huge Eberron fan, and that basically took Baator, and the Abyss, and Mount Celestia to the sacred slaughterhouse, and I'm pretty sure I was still playing D&D when we broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.

Or are you saying I wasn't actually playing D&D?


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It should be noted that this creates a big opening (and perhaps demand) for Green Ronin or perhaps Paizo to do a 4E OGL Book of Fiends.




And depending on how the OGL is set up, I think it could even rely on the 3E SRD for some content, like... CE succubi.


----------



## Oldtimer (Aug 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I just find it lazy is all.  How about stop stealing from known religious and make up your own bs.



Bah! A good skald always takes what is familiar and builds his story from that. It's not like they are going to copy text verbatim out of any religious texts. It's still a new story, but built on a somewhat familiar foundation.

Shakespeare was copying old stories for most of his work. Do you consider him lazy as well?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 30, 2007)

These are Setting elements.  These hardly affect anything I'll be doing with monsters.  

Yeah, all monsters are Setting elements.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?



No, I'm not, but frankly that's a kinda insulting thing to say.  I know you're all Mr. Plancescape and whatnot, but I daresay that for most of us, esoteric details about the outer planes is not what makes D&D D&D.


----------



## The Lost Muse (Aug 30, 2007)

As someone who is relatively new to D&D (started playing in 2001), I wouldn't know anything about planescape if I didn't frequent this board and the WotC boards. Or, I might remember Planescape: Torment, but that'd be it. Out of the 4 groups I have been fortunate to be a part of, only people in one knew anything about more than two of: Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Planescape, and Dark Sun. And that's only because they had been playing since 2e.

I personally like the changes they are suggesting, because it's close to what I do when I homebrew.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 30, 2007)

Please see post #162 before you're tempted to continue the "not playing D&D" argument. It isn't something I'd like to see continued, and I'd like the thread to stay on topic.

Thanks!


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> No, I'm not, but frankly that's a kinda insulting thing to say.




It wasn't intended to be. Please don't ascribe motives.

In terms of what Wormwood said (not WotC with 4e), if you're wanting to redefine basic creatures in the game, the CE and LE fiends in this case, because you don't see how they're different from one another when those differences are pretty obvious from just the material in the MM and maybe the MotP at most, maybe you'll find something more tailored to your ideas elsewhere. Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being. If you want to erase most of that apparently, a different system with different core assumptions for basic monsters might be more appropriate.

Edit: Saw your note PCat. Noted.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 30, 2007)

I guess part of the disconnect, here, is that I'm not seeing how the change to the devils' origins alters their basic motivations or their attitudes with respect to demons. It _can_ alter those, sure, but I don't see why it _has to_.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 30, 2007)

This bit bothered me:


> One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.




That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:

- Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.

- Erynies are the torturers of the Cosmos. They seek out those guilty of abominable crimes and torture the hell (pun intended) out of them.

How is that "similar territory"?

As for the looks of demons and devils, for the longest while I have held the opinion that devils should be more humanoid, but with horns, wings and tails, a very draconic appearance. Because oppressive law can be described as "draconic", and LE is all about oppressive law. Demons, OTOH, could have appearance that were all over the place, from the seductive near-human succubus to the just-plain-weird glabrezu.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Timmundo said:
			
		

> As someone who is relatively new to D&D (started playing in 2001), I wouldn't know anything about planescape if I didn't frequent this board and the WotC boards.





I'm running a D&D game TONIGHT with 2 kids (11 and 14) and three adults (mid 30's). 

Not a single one of them has ever even heard of Planescape, nor could any of them give a fig about the Great Wheel, the Blood War, or any of the 30 years of D&D's patchwork planar mythology. 

A new cosmology---tighter and designed to be cohesive and accessible? FANTASTIC. 

The poster who mentioned Marvel's Ultimate line hits close to the mark. When I wanted to get my nephew interested in Spider-man, it was Ultimate Spider-Man to the rescue (rebooting the setting and dumping 40 years of continuity made the hero accessible and fresh).

Bring on Ultimate Orcus.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

> > - Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think you're making a mistake in assuming that just one god was betrayed and killed. For all we know, this has repeated itself continuously throughout history, with the newly turned devils joining already existing devils. If I had to guess, I'd say the Nine Hells consist of nine separate godly realms, each of which had an angelic rebellion that led to the death of the god they served. 

As for real world, I don't mind. In the Time of Troubles trilogy, we have not only the Faeruinian gods, but an Overgod, Ao. It's then discovered that Ao answers to a god greater than even himself. So one can imagine that there's a Supreme Being at the end of the line, who rules over the whole universe. No reason not to say that that god isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

And bear in mind, the article says the following: 



> The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.






> - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.




They were cursed, so who cursed them? They were imprisoned, so who imprisoned them? My theory is that it was the Supreme Being (The Over-Over-Overgod). He was the very first deity to be betrayed by his angelic servants, but He was so friggin' tough that they couldn't take him.  So he cursed them into becoming Devils and imprisoned them in hell. Then some other angels worshipping some lesser god (Your average polytheistic deities) betrayed their god and murdered him. So God punished them all just as he did the ones who served him, as their job was to serve that deity, not murder him. Those events repeated themselves with other deities, and God cursed those angels as well, transforming them into devils and imprisoning them all in a hell shaped from the realm they were supposed to defend. 

That's my theory, anyway.


----------



## Grog (Aug 30, 2007)

The only problem I have with this change is that it sure seems like there are an awful lot of fallen angels around. I think I'd like it a lot better if it were only the original devils who were fallen angels, and most of them were simply created later in that same image. That would make a lot more sense, in my view.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It should be noted that this creates a big opening (and perhaps demand) for Green Ronin or perhaps Paizo to do a 4E OGL Book of Fiends.




But not one based on D&D history and names for unique to D&D fiends like Grazzt.

I asked in a previous thread about the demise of dragon if they'd want to do an OGL demonomicon and they (I can't remember if it was Jacobs or Mona) said they had no interest in doing more if they couldn't use past D&D connections and references.

So you might have to be satisfied with the work already done in Book of Fiends (slightly different take on devils, etc.)


----------



## DarthDiablo (Aug 30, 2007)

For those who are concerned about the fluff changes for Demons & Devils, nothing WOTC is doing now will compare to TSR's 2nd Edition Change that essentially killed off all of the Demon Princes & Arch-Devils, created the council of 8 Pit Fiend lords of the 9 Hells, and decided our beloved Mythological/Religious Villians become Aliens with names like Baatezu & Tann'ari.  
     One of the best things about 3rd edition was they brought these baddies back.  3.5 went further into religion by changing certain Celestials into Angels.  4th edition just goes (to rip an old Ska Tune) 1 Step Beyond.  I may not agree with all of the changes they make, but overall things are looking pretty good.  Besides, if you don't like a certain fluffy description, change it for your campaign.  If it's the crunch, re-write it in a way you like.  
     D&D is based off of Ancient Mythology and modern fantasy.  The Greek, Norse, Egyptian, & Sumerian/Babylonian (Tiamat!) Gods all work well with this.  I'll even dare to say if someone wants to Judeo-Christian religion fits very nicely into D&D.  Obviously Demons & Devils are part of this, but Paladins & Clerics have middle-ages Crusader written all over them as well.  The divine powers of the cleric also fit well with certain prophets like Moses & even the Messiah himself (pillars of flame, walking on water, creating meals for the masses-all that good stuff).  Making another distinction between Demons & Devils just adds more to this fluff.  Perhaps this is also pre-cursor to the alignment changes I have read about on other forums, which would explain the need for a more distinct difference other than one type is CE & the other LE.  Mayby they will even drag the "Yugoloths" (anyone remember 1st edition Daemons?!?) over into the Demon fold, which I think is a much better place for them.
     Being a fan of Greek Mythology since I saw Clash of the Titans as a young'un I can only hope Medusea are properly re-written as Gorgons, and the name not given to those oversized oxen.  Now if they can just keep names like Baatezu & Tann'ari out of the loop, things will be even better than I hoped.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> If you're wanting to redefine basic creatures in the game, the CE and LE fiends in this case, because you don't see how they're different from one another when those differences are pretty obvious from just the material in the MM and maybe the MotP at most, maybe you'll find something more tailored to your ideas elsewhere. Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being.



Once again, I disagree with that. It may be true for the planescape DM, or for the truely high ranking fiends, but for the the most basic ones... There is no real difference of look or behaviour in the way they are played. Compare a Dretch and a Lemure, an Imp and a Quasit... They have nearly the same description in the MM in 3e. And, if you stumble on the picture of a new fiend in some MMx, there is no way to tell the demons from the devils before you read its entry. Heck, even the progression (from larva to fiend lord) is roughly the same for both species.  And the symetry extended to their background, both baatezu and tana'ri beeing somewhat recent beeing who have overthrown a more ancient evil  race.
I'm happy they make them more disctinct than what they were in the precedent edition, and I hope this difference wil be radical.


----------



## bastrak (Aug 30, 2007)

The changes to Demons and Devils just feel wrong to me, particularly the change to the Erinyes and the Succubus. It just makes me want to continue with 3.5 which I plan to do and reduces my enthusiasm for 4e.

I am not in favour of dumbing down the Great Wheel cosmology in favour of some simplified version either.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 30, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Well, by removing it from the roster of evil outsiders, they actually have the opportunity to do this, by designing from scratch a creature that more faithfully matches the original mythology, in a future product. They may or may not end up doing so, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it. The erinyes should fill a role similar to the inevitables, if anything.



That's an interesting idea. I'm OK with removing them from the devils' roster, but I would still leave their alignment as evil.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being. If you want to erase most of that apparently, a different system with different core assumptions for basic monsters might be more appropriate.



Well, I honestly don't think that the interaction between demons and devils are such a big deal in defining the assumptions of D&D. In AD&D they were just two separate groups of evil creatures without any specific interaction....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 30, 2007)

*shrug*

As long as the succubus stays sexy ...

I've never really used demons & devils much, so while I think it is irritating to turn that much D&D history on its head, I'm not really affected by it.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 30, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> - Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.
> 
> - Erynies are the torturers of the Cosmos. They seek out those guilty of abominable crimes and torture the hell (pun intended) out of them.
> 
> How is that "similar territory"?



Hmm. Because of teh hawtness? Can't have two physically beautiful, evil, human-looking fiends I guess. A gorgeous "monster" can only have a single purpose, regardless of what it actually does, and that is to look pretty. That's the purpose.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> In that case are you sure it's D&D that you really want to be playing?



By that reasoning, Eberron isn't D&D as it replaces the Great Wheel with its own planar cosmology.

I'm not really a fan of the Great Wheel either, half-a-dozen different outer planes all inhabited by these horned, bat-winged supernaturally evil creatures. What's the point? They are all basically Hell.


----------



## getgoldcardsoul (Aug 30, 2007)

I always thought of Erinyes more like dominatrices (Lawful subtype as well as their Animate Rope type ability), seducing and then forcing men to do their will, while succubi are just out to destroy for the thrill. I figured those are different enough! ...but I guess this is a case of fluff being ignored for monsters having only one specific purpose: being killed within 5 rounds. 

Oh well. _Conceptually_ I always liked flavor, but I could always come up with that myself. When reading fluff in books, it takes me a _looong_ time to get through... unless its exceptional. For instance, the "Races of..." series, though somewhat insightful, took me a while to read; I guess it just wasn't interesting _enough_ for me. Now take old 2e Planescape fluff and I gulp it down like I was in a desert without water for a day! It might be because the few books I've read were more narrative in Planescape.

Whatever. I should look at this for what the rules _do_ and not what their little monster manual says I should do with them.


...poor Erinyes... I hardly knew thee... let alone could pronounce that diphthong!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:
> 
> - Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out on other threads (listen for the sounds of people kicking gnomes ), mythological roots don't usually translate into D&D terms. In D&D terms, the big difference between succubi and eryines were their wings and which Evil Club they belonged to.

I can't for a moment imagine they won't be back by the time MM3 hits the shelves. Probably sooner. They're just giving up their seat on the MM1 bus in favor of something more dissimilar as compared to the succubus.


----------



## getgoldcardsoul (Aug 30, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Hmm. Because of teh hawtness? Can't have two physically beautiful, evil, human-looking fiends I guess. A gorgeous "monster" can only have a single purpose, regardless of what it actually does, and that is to look pretty. That's the purpose.



Heh. Why not fold Nymph into that as well, then? Oh, different enough fluff (evil and nature), I guess.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

bastrak said:
			
		

> I am not in favour of dumbing down the Great Wheel cosmology in favour of some simplified version either.




Streamlining =/= "dumbing down"


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 30, 2007)

I really like erinyes, so much I even wrote a Savage Species progression as I was planning to play one, but the D&D version doesn't have enough of a concept. The succubus is the temptress - a clear role. According to the 3e MM erinyes "serve as scouts, servants, and even concubines for powerful devils". In terms of powers they're a more fighty, scouty version of the succubus. It's really not good enough. There's only limited space in MM1, so only the strongest and most useful concepts should go in...

Banish the erinyes!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 30, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> But not one based on D&D history and names for unique to D&D fiends like Grazzt.



So call him the Dark Man that witches worship. Clearly the same guy, no IP issues. I've been contemplating shopping around a gnome/kobold PDF and it took me all of 30 seconds to come up with generic versions of Kurtulmak, Tiamat and Garl Glittergold that I could use safely.



> I asked in a previous thread about the demise of dragon if they'd want to do an OGL demonomicon and they (I can't remember if it was Jacobs or Mona) said they had no interest in doing more if they couldn't use past D&D connections and references.
> 
> So you might have to be satisfied with the work already done in Book of Fiends (slightly different take on devils, etc.)



The 3E Book of Fiends was also written by Chris Pramas, who has said his company will support 4E. While Erik's work is great, he's not the only one capable of hitting the ball out of the park on this subject.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 30, 2007)

Rich Baker said:
			
		

> - Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.



What happened to the Angels who didn't rise up? Did they flee? Did they fight to the death? Was there a great purge, a war among brothers? Are they trapped in the Nine Hells too?


			
				Rich Baker said:
			
		

> - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.



Nice.


			
				Rich Baker said:
			
		

> - We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.



That's a shame, and it doesn't logically follow either.

1. As well covered, the Succubus and the Erinyes do NOT cover the the same ground - unless you mean the "attractive evil female humanoid with wings" ground, which is a pretty shallow reading of both.

2. Just because all Devils are humanoids, it does not follow that all Demons are non-humanoids.  Personally I can't see any devils who want to look like an 8-year old girl with a cute dolly, but I bet there are some demons who would go that route ...


			
				Rich Baker said:
			
		

> - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a *demonic/yugoloth* race...



Am I the only one who caught "demonic/yugoloth"??  I think "weird, awful things made of nightmares" category of creature has been rolled up into one category.  Some of them may be more "evil" than others, but I think "chaos" is the defining theme that will link them all together.  This is probably good in some respects, since Chthulu and his ilk aren't easily categorized on the whole "good vs. evil" thing (they're really just alien), but it probably makes sense to say he's some kind of "Elder Demon/yugoloth."

All in all, this is the most "mixed bag" report on 4e I've seen, IMO.  I like that the distinction between Demons and Devils is being cleaned up.  It was never clear to me (not being a Planescape guy, and not having bought a whole bunch of supplements on the matter).  I'm glad there's more to distinguish them now than just "lawful" vs. "chaotic", as that was a bit bland.  OTOH, I'm not wild about the change to the Erinyes/Succubus, or what it says about the judgment of the "planar creatures" developers.  It makes me worried about what other changes / cuts they have in store.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, but I think the planar arhetypes that need the most work are the "epitome of law" types.  Neither the Modrons nor the ant-men ever really did anything for me.  This probably won't fly, but I think the Lawful planars should be crystalline intelligences that want to slow grow and grow until they have imposed a beautiful, unchanging crystal matrix upon the entire multiverse.  Once everything is absorbed into the matrix (not, "the Matrix"), all will be harmonics and light.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 30, 2007)

Giving this further thought, I do feel that it was a mistake to fold the erinyes and succubus together. I don't mind the succubus being a devil, but I think the erinyes could have been moved closer to their mythological roots and thus made distinct--even if they're both devils.

Ah, well. That's what MM2 is for. 

As far as Planescape, I see no reason for this change to impact a (potential) future Planescape setting. Eberron, as others have pointed out, already has a cosmology vastly different from the assumed norm. So all a Planescape chapter on fiends has to do is start out with a sentence something like:

"Those sages who dwell amongst the planes have alternate theories as to the origin of the beings known as devils, theories that stand greatly at odds with accepted doctrine on the Material Plane."

Clean slate, to continue Planescape theology/history as it's always been.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> I was actually referring to simplifying the "crunch" bits, not the flavor background.
> 
> I see many cries for simplification from long-time gamers on the boards, but I'd wager most of them wouldn't like the long-running flavor thrown out to achieve it.



Actually, I'd prefer them to throw out as much assumed story as possible to free me up to build my own story.  Simplify the story and leave me all the crunchy bits I need to build whatever my imagination dreams up.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 30, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> 1. As well covered, the Succubus and the Erinyes do NOT cover the the same ground - unless you mean the "attractive evil female humanoid with wings" ground, which is a pretty shallow reading of both.




Actually, it is a pretty accurate reading of both, *when that reading is confined to the role they play in the D&D ruleset*.

While the mythological basis is definitely much more varied, they really aren't all that far apart in terms of how they work when that mythology is coopted by D&D.  For instance, my only real exposure to both succubi and Erinyes together was in the game Planecape: Torment, where you could bring the "fallen" Succubus Fall-from-Grace into the shop run by the Erinyes (... whose name I forget, but was something involving Eyes, I think ...).  They didn't like each other.  They looked pretty similar.  The Erinyes tried to seduce the main character.

Not a great deal of variation, there.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

At this point, fold the Erinyes into whatever 4e uses for LN 'inevitables' and call it a day.


----------



## IanB (Aug 30, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a pretty accurate reading of both, *when that reading is confined to the role they play in the D&D ruleset*.
> 
> While the mythological basis is definitely much more varied, they really aren't all that far apart in terms of how they work when that mythology is coopted by D&D.  For instance, my only real exposure to both succubi and Erinyes together was in the game Planecape: Torment, where you could bring the "fallen" Succubus Fall-from-Grace into the shop run by the Erinyes.  They didn't like each other.  They looked pretty similar.  The Erinyes tried to seduce the main character.
> 
> Not a great deal of variation, there.




And that lack of variation is everywhere the erinyes turns up in 3-3.5 as far as I've seen. What do erinyes progress into in FC2? "Pleasure devils." What role do the erinyes near the end of Red Hand of Doom fill? I'll give a hint, it isn't a military role. They both are 'hot chicks' with at will charm monster. Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 30, 2007)

getgoldcardsoul said:
			
		

> Heh. Why not fold Nymph into that as well, then? Oh, different enough fluff (evil and nature), I guess.



Well, nymphs aren't exactly fiendish, nor do they _necessarily_ dwell on another plane.


----------



## Clavis (Aug 30, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> This bit bothered me:
> 
> 
> That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:
> ...




Maybe someone on the WOTC staff has femdom fantasies... Look for a lot of leather and a whip in the new illustration.

Of course, the Drow sort of cover that territory already...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Oh yeah...and the whole 'too close to RW thing'...nah. Devils need a credible reason to be heinously nasty...and I think killing their deity fits the bill. Bible thumpers will thump over the demons/devils regardless, so if they're in the game (and the should be!) then let them be the nasty things they should be! And remember...they are there so the players can overcome the evil...which is a good thing.



It's not like there aren't plenty of gods to go around, anyway.  What's one god more or less in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## Agamon (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, I, for one, am glad that outsiders are no longer based upon alignment.  I'm looking forward to the not-in-your-face alignment of 4E (I'd look forward more to no alignment at all, but this is a good step).

And why is it okay to change rules, but not fluff?  Good on WotC for putting a simpler structure in for these creatures that you don't need a Planescape PhD to know.


----------



## getgoldcardsoul (Aug 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> It wasn't intended to be. Please don't ascribe motives.



I don't like this.

If a person was to go throughout their day not intending to harm anyone, but in the process of daily life by _complete_ accident harms another person (say, crashing into another's car or, to a less dramatic extent, bumping into someone), you don't tell the that person you hit, "Well, you shouldn't have been there when I was."

The same applies to being insulted even when no insult was intended. Please don't blame the insulted; merely apologize.


----------



## getgoldcardsoul (Aug 30, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Well, nymphs aren't exactly fiendish, nor do they _necessarily_ dwell on another plane.



That's just fluff.  
At the crunchy core, they are the same thing (beautiful, charming monsters).


----------



## jasin (Aug 30, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As for the looks of demons and devils, for the longest while I have held the opinion that devils should be more humanoid, but with horns, wings and tails, a very draconic appearance. Because oppressive law can be described as "draconic", and LE is all about oppressive law.



Draconic laws have nothing to do with dragons.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Kvantum (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, that's all folks. I'm out. Goodbye, good night, that's it. I'm done with even the idea of 4e. This is just a STUPID change to make that completely invalidates all the old material on the planes. To hell with it, and to hell with WotC. I'll stick with 3.5 for... well, as long as it takes for them to realize all these changes are a bad idea. (See you in 2010 or so.)


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> Well, that's all folks. I'm out. Goodbye, good night, that's it. I'm done with even the idea of 4e. This is just a STUPID change to make that completely invalidates all the old material on the planes. To hell with it, and to hell with WotC. I'll stick with 3.5 for... well, as long as it takes for them to realize all these changes are a bad idea. (See you in 2010 or so.)




Later!


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 30, 2007)

Oh well,

I must say, I read that and thought: Great! I really like the idea to be able to describe a monster to my (not very D&D Cosmology firm) group and they will be able to guess wether its a Demon or a Devil. (Up until know, that had more to do with a Know Planes Check)

So, might be a minority, but I do see this having a positive effect on my game. At the end of the day, thats all I care for.

Oh, and about the religious people might get angry stuff, I can't commend on that. There never was a RPG Witch Hunt in Germany afaik, and if one takes a look at the most successfull RPG here (Dark Eye), well, lets just say D&D is a really good little child


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 30, 2007)

I've been playing D&D since around 1981.  And I've hated the whole Great Wheel cosmology pretty much from day one.  It's just so *silly*, and codifies alignment way too much, IMHO.

I for one am very glad to see it go, and something better take it's place.  No way is the Great Wheel "essential to D&D".  (And no, I've never liked Planescape, either.)


----------



## Clueless (Aug 31, 2007)

... merging succubus and eryines? Excuse me? Not only is that an incredibly poor writing decision - to attempt to merge two creatures that serve *entirely* different, parallel and *contrasting* roles... but I find that on some level personally offensive. They're alike only in that they're "hot females" - does this mean the new writing team thinks one "hot female" is interchangeable with the other? Did they even bother to read the original material on the roles of the two creatures or will they be handwaving that off as something they don't have the time to do or can't find the books for researching the previous material?

Mind you - if they're portraying all of this as a non-great wheel cosmology or a myth, hey, no skin off my back. But otherwise it sounds like a lazy and poorly executed idea.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2007)

Keep in mind the Erynies as avenger thing came around in 3.5, not in older material.



			
				Monster Manual said:
			
		

> The erinyes are devils common to Hell's second plane as well as the kind most commonly sent forth to garner more souls. They are female but can appear as male.[snip combat stats]They will peruse evil persons unceasingly in order to take them alive into hell. They will sometimes bargain with other, hoping to tempt them into doing evil.






			
				Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium said:
			
		

> *Habitat/Society:* Erinyes are solitary baatezu, rarely wen in groups of any kind. They are cunning and evil, securing their position amongst the baatezu as tempters of mortals. Even though the erinyes we lesser baatezu, they have a special station in the Nine Hells. As tempters, they report directly to the Dark Eight and are outside the normal chain of command.[snip]
> 
> As tempters, the erinyes have a special power that none of the other baatezu-even the great pit fiends-have; the ability to pass into the Prime Material plane for short periods of time. They do this to attempt to trick and lure mortals back to the Nine Hells with them- They cannot bring anyone or anything with them when they pass into the Prime Material plane, and they can only bring one person back with them when they pass back into the Nine Hells- They cannot bring back inorganic matter, so victims will arrive in the Nine Hells without possessions.  Once on the Prime Material plane, the Erinyes will seek out a mortal to lure back to the Nine Hells. Using its charm person power and its ability to assume a comely male or female form, the Erinyes will try to seduce the mortal. This done, it can transport the mortal and itself back to the Nine Hells.
> 
> Mortals so trapped are doomed to die in the inhuman plains of the Nine Hells unless their own magical strengths can save them. When a mortal dies this way, he will become a lemure and be doomed to serve forever as a soldier of the Nine Hells- It is because of this power to tempt and doom mortals that the Erinyes are respected by all baatezu.




{editors note: the write-up in The Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix is nearly identical, except referencing Baator instead of the Nine Hells and some simple word choices. For the purposes of discussion, they are practically identical}



			
				Monster Manual 3.0 said:
			
		

> Like their demonic counterparts, the succubi, erinyes seek to tempt mortals into depravity. Unlike other devils, erinyes appear as attractive humans, resembling very comely women except for their huge, feathery wings and sinister eyes. They are about 6 feet tall.






			
				Monster Manual v3.5 said:
			
		

> Rumor in the underworld tells that the first erinyes were angels who fell from their lofty heights because of some temptation or misdeed. Now, the skies of the Nine Hells are litterered with their descendants. Erinyes serve as scouts, servants, and even concubines for powerful devils. Unlike other devils, erinyes appear attractive to humans, resembling very comely women or men. They’re not above taking advantage of being mistaken for the celestials that legend says they once were. An erinyes stands about 6 feet tall and weighs about 150 pounds.




So you can see, Erinyes as temptress's with different wings WERE the norm until 3.5. Its also easy to see they DO share a similar position in the game: evil winged hawt woman of doom. And since succubi is a more familiar name, guess which one is being kept in 4e...


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the Erynies as avenger thing came around in 3.5, not in older material. <snip awesomeness>




*applause*


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 31, 2007)

*Iiiiiiim a Terlen....*



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So you can see, Erinyes as temptress's with different wings WERE the norm until 3.5. Its also easy to see they DO share a similar position in the game




Alot of fiends are interested in collecting mortal souls, but they do so in drastically different ways. Should we combine them all?

Should we merge glabrezu into succubi, since they're demonic tempters as well? Perhaps tossing in arcanaloths and harvester devils as well? Rename them as Temptation Fiends, and leave it at that?

Hyperbole aside, there's a point where streamlining jumps the shark. Combining Succubi and Erinyes into one monster risks jumping over, well, this thing:


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 31, 2007)

I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 31, 2007)

> Alot of fiends are interested in collecting mortal souls, but they do so in drastically different ways. Should we combine them all?
> 
> Should we merge glabrezu into succubi, since they're demonic tempters as well?



I did not knew that glabrezu were winged beautiful humanoid fiends tempting mortal by seducing them...


Anyway, this whole thing is getting annoying : if I understand correctly, the erinyes is not merged with the succubi, it is replaced by the succubi, because fiends are no more defined by their alignment (because 4e don't care that much about it) but by, gasp, their role.

So, goodbye erinyes, see you later in the MM2. And this time, probably with a very different outlook.


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 31, 2007)

Interesting... I like it. The story about them killing the god and falling from grace is really similar to my homebrew.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Aug 31, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.




Well, unlike the Succubus, who's concept is pretty darn reliant on being able to pass as humanoid, the Pit Fiends and Balors aren't terribly bound in appearance to fulfill their functions.

So I'd expect that if any major thematic changes are going to affect those two creatures, it will simply be making Pit Fiends to look more humanoid and Balors to look more monsterous,


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 31, 2007)

I am pleased by the implication that devils might show a side of Evil that isn't just about being stupidly violent.  Let them be the corrupt diplomats, clawing their way to the top of every pile, through careful planning and manipulation.  Let them be the hidden hand behind the overthrow of the king, and the subsequent totalitarian government.  Devils should be orchestrating the closing of the orphanage, turning all the orphans out into the street to starve--or steal, and thereby run afoul of the devil-inspired police state.

Let the demons take over completely the role of violent, destructive lunatics, leaving the devils with the role of despicable masterminds.

Evil doesn't always have to be violent.  It can also be simply cold, calculating, and determined to take every advantage it can.  If they take it in this direction, I endorse the change.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2007)

Love it, love it, love it!

The Succubus/Erinyes thing... I understand why they're getting merged. The Erinyes in myth have a far, far stronger role than they've ever had in D&D. They're "just another monster" in 3e. They only really work in a low-magic world in their original purpose. (They come to punish you? I've already lost my family to giants... bring on the Erinyes!)

Cheers!


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the Erynies as avenger thing came around in 3.5, not in older material.



Aeschylus predates Gygax by a few years...   

But seriously, you have a point. The way they were represented in D&D those two monsters were perhaps too similar... I can see the case for dropping one. Hopefully, the Erinyes can come back in alter manual with her proper role restores as we had already argued....


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So you can see, Erinyes as temptress's with different wings WERE the norm until 3.5. Its also easy to see they DO share a similar position in the game: evil winged hawt woman of doom. And since succubi is a more familiar name, guess which one is being kept in 4e...



Bravo on the research!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 31, 2007)

If Erinyes and Succubi do end up being merged into one, which I don't prefer.  Then a Succubus should still be a Demon, not matter what.  If the Devils get to take the Gelugon/Ice-Devil from the Demons, then the Demons should have something to take from the Devils.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Aug 31, 2007)

I started in AD&D with the MM demons & devils and the PHB "Great Wheel".

I eschewed 2e D&D so I never followed any of the Planescape stuff, but I did flip through a friend's MM binder where I saw the ridiculous baatezu/tanar'ri crap. The fact that TSR kowtowed to the fundamentalists fueled my joy when they finally went belly up and sold out to WotC.

For 3e, I decided I didn't care too much for stirct alignments or the Great Wheel, so I made my own cosmology. It appears that WotC's changes for 4e have some parallels to my own origins of demons and devils. 


Demons are spirits of primal chaos and evil. They are almost invariably monstrous (humanoid or bestial), following only one rule "might makes right."

Celestials are spirits of primal law and good. They are almost invariably magnificent (humanoid or bestial), and follow a strict hierarchy.

Devils are fallen celestials. A council of nine celestial lords and their cohorts rebelled against the higher powers. Upon their defeat they were cursed and driven from the Seven Heavens. They fled to the Abyss where they wrested a region from the poorly organized demons. This devil-ruled area is known as the Nine Hells. 

These kingdoms continually engage in numerous internal intrigues, all the while trying to contol their chaotic demon subjects, and fend off incursions from the wilds of the Abyss beyond their borders. [edit: a bit like ancient Rome.]

Devils can appear magnificent (to beguile), or monstrous (to intimidate... or when they loose their temper).


Ultimately I don't care if WotC changes their "default" cosmology. I have my own ideas, and would only pick over theirs for some inspiration.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

These changes largely mirror my own thoughts on how these creatures should fit in the game.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

This is very cool. A bit overly Judaeo-Christian, but still very cool. As someone who never really cared for the Great Wheel, the reification of alignment or Planescape, the further they get from that setup, the better as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.




I do. They are, in fact, too similar to each other.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Alot of fiends are interested in collecting mortal souls, but they do so in drastically different ways. Should we combine them all?
> 
> Should we merge glabrezu into succubi, since they're demonic tempters as well? Perhaps tossing in arcanaloths and harvester devils as well? Rename them as Temptation Fiends, and leave it at that?
> 
> Hyperbole aside, there's a point where streamlining jumps the shark. Combining Succubi and Erinyes into one monster risks jumping over, well, this thing:




As someone who is not at all infatuated with Planescape, these changes make sense to me.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I do. They are, in fact, too similar to each other.




While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Clueless said:
			
		

> ... merging succubus and eryines? Excuse me? Not only is that an incredibly poor writing decision - to attempt to merge two creatures that serve *entirely* different, parallel and *contrasting* roles... but I find that on some level personally offensive. They're alike only in that they're "hot females" - does this mean the new writing team thinks one "hot female" is interchangeable with the other?




Me too! Why, I have half a mind to report them to Sexual Harassment Panda!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.




I agree with Rich Baker's decision to have devils be humanoid in appearance and demons be 'outwardly monstrous.' Although, perhaps pit fiends could be the result of Balors transformed by the powers of Hell to serve them.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.



Yes... the Pit Fiend can be the an evil master mind, incredibly cunning and manipulative, with impressive charisma, while the Balor can be a primeval engine of flaming distruction...


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 31, 2007)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> Well, that's all folks. I'm out. Goodbye, good night, that's it. I'm done with even the idea of 4e. This is just a STUPID change to make that completely invalidates all the old material on the planes. To hell with it, and to hell with WotC. I'll stick with 3.5 for... well, as long as it takes for them to realize all these changes are a bad idea. (See you in 2010 or so.)



Absolutely! I can't BELIEVE that they've merged two monsters into one, and made some changes to the history of demons and devils. Why, there's NO WAY I can ever use the older background in my games! Because of this monumental change, an entire new system is dead to me - dead, I say! Kvantum, you are quite right to upend a big bucket of melodrama in this thread - good for you, my angry friend!

God, I wish there was an eyeroll smiley.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I agree with Rich Baker's decision to have devils be humanoid in appearance and demons be 'outwardly monstrous.' Although, perhaps pit fiends could be the result of Balors transformed by the powers of Hell to serve them.




Hmm...

I think pit fiends are too iconic as devils for them to be "demon transplants." What I'd rather see is one of the following:

A) Pit fiends are an exception to the "devils tend to appear human" rule, being such ancient examples of diabolical evil--but lacking the power of the Dukes, to maintain their appearance--that they've taken on a more monstrous form.

Or, my _preferred_ option...

B) Pit fiends have two forms: A very human one, with only a few diabolic traits, and the standard pit fiend form, which erupts when they grow angry or violent.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> This is very cool. A bit overly Judaeo-Christian, but still very cool. As someone who never really cared for the Great Wheel, the reification of alignment or Planescape, the further they get from that setup, the better as far as I'm concerned.




Hong and I are in agreement yet again; from this _representative sample_ I conclude those of us in the statistical sciences have the same gaming preferences at the 0.01 significance level.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.



Why do you need two balrogs? Save one for MM2, and use that space in MM1 for a dramatically different monster.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> I think pit fiends are too iconic as devils for them to be "demon transplants." What I'd rather see is one of the following:
> 
> ...




Your second option reminds me of that pit fiend from _Night Below_ who appeared as a handsome human unless roused to anger.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> While I agree they're somewhat similar on a purely physical level, I'd like to see them further differentiated, rather than combined.




To differentiate them, you really have to do it at the story level (through an adventure), and the difference between the persecution of the Erinyes and the seduction of the Succubus are not easy things to present to the players... especially if they're used to killing monsters first. 

Cheers!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Why do you need two balrogs? Save one for MM2, and use that space in MM1 for a dramatically different monster.




Incidentally, of the two names, I prefer _pit fiend_. Leave balrogs/balors in Tolkien's works where they belong.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 31, 2007)

For more on the Erynies (Alecto, Megaera and Tisiphone): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furies

As Mouseferatu, I'd prefer to see succubi and erynies remaining two different creatures, with the erynies being altered to resemble their status as female personification of vengeance. Keeping the erynies also opens the door for eumenides, the positive aspect of the erynies, as celestials.


----------



## JoelF (Aug 31, 2007)

Count my vote for another one who's not happy with combining succibi and eryines.  I'm indifferent on the other changes (thought probably would have prefered not messing with the devil fluff).  My biggest concern isn't the combination in a vacuum, but instead about how many other changes are made which I think suck.  This is the first fact about 4E which I 100% don't like, but based on it, I can infer that there will be many changes to monsters which simply don't make sense to long time players.  

Will we have gorgons and medusas combined into one monster to avoid confusion that in greek mythology Medusa was one of the gogrons?

Will skeletons be missing entirely from 4E because the Chinese censors banned them from WoW, and WOTC wants 4E to be easily portable to the global market?  (I'm not kidding about the Chinese censors either)

How about combining griffons and hippogriffs also, since lots of players get them confused, and they're both basically winged mounts.  (Hey, let's just call them pegasi and knock out 3 at once!)


----------



## avin (Aug 31, 2007)

What happened to the Blood War?

Please... please... please...

just don't mess with Yugoloths...

What's next? Vampire Lich Lady of Pain ?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> B) Pit fiends have two forms: A very human one, with only a few diabolic traits, and the standard pit fiend form, which erupts when they grow angry or violent.



Or... when they get _wounded_!

But I'm going to miss my erinyes, because they've hit a sweet spot for me (much more than the succubi).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> Count my vote for another one who's not happy with combining succibi and eryines.  I'm indifferent on the other changes (thought probably would have prefered not messing with the devil fluff).  My biggest concern isn't the combination in a vacuum, but instead about how many other changes are made which I think suck.  This is the first fact about 4E which I 100% don't like, but based on it, I can infer that there will be many changes to monsters which simply don't make sense to long time players.




I'm a long-time player and the changes make sense to me. But then I was never one for the implied setting as it exists currently and in previous editions (a reason I always preferred to roll my own worlds, or hassle DMs to let me use homebrew stuff). All these changes so far have been moving the implied setting closer to what I would use, which is great.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Hong and I are in agreement yet again; from this _representative sample_ I conclude those of us in the statistical sciences have the same gaming preferences at the 0.01 significance level.



 Watch it mang, my standard deviation is bigger than yours.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 31, 2007)

Clueless said:
			
		

> ...  personally offensive. They're alike only in that they're "hot females" - does this mean the new writing team thinks one "hot female" is interchangeable with the other?




They're getting rid of gnomes. They must think all short people are interchangeable too, calling them all 'halflings!' I for one am enraged.



I like this change.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Aug 31, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I think it's safe to say this edition is not aimed at people for whom the decades of fluff are a priority.



*high five*


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As for alignment, the word from the GenCon seminar was that it would exist, but not as we know it, and would no real _mechanical_ impact on the game.




Death to alignment!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 31, 2007)

Another thought...  I like the way that the devils were sentenced to imprisonment in the Nine Hells not because they lost their coup, but because they won it.


----------



## Andor (Aug 31, 2007)

I like it. It feels more mythic to me. The blood war and the great wheel never did make a whole lot of sense to me, and I'm a planescape fan. 

Hopefully along with these changes they'll also change Angelic/Demonic DRs so that they aren't completely worthless against their chosen enemies. :\


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Aug 31, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> To be honest, I am pretty sure I saw him post in several threads that he has no interest whatsoever in D&D, but 4E may be to his liking. In other words, he is cheering for WotC to basically kill whatever it is that makes the essence of D&D and publish a totally new RPG under the banner.




I never really found the fluff, planes, etc. part of the essence of D&D. To me that stuff was l for folks that were REALLY into the "Dungeons & Dragons Official Backstory." The type that would read the novels, were interested in the offical line on "where the d&d world came from", "how did mimics evolve", etc.

The majority of people I play D&D with know nothing about the blood war, or sigil, or even have a clear idea of the planes cosmology. And, for me, as a long time D&D player and DM, and I don't want the responsibility of keeping up with canon. I don't want to read additional books to be informed about metaphysical politics & history.

IMC Demons are from "The Outer Dark"  and Devils...I don't use Devils. Slaad yes, Devils no. The Planes? Different religions cults say different things...but the characters? Heck, even when it is their business to travel to other planes it's to kill things, take their stuff, and enjoy the scenery.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 31, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Meh.  The first two and fourth bullet point are all fluff - more of that "implied setting" stuff that we've been hearing about.  Though the fourth bullet point at least strongly implies that yugoloths will still be around, which warms my heart at least.




I like it in and of itself, but it's sort of the Implied Setting that's getting a bit irksome. Eberron may have had it's oddities, but folks complained about it over using an old setting. Now we get another new "setting", and it's got stuff built into it that will conflict with established settings, from the start.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 31, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.




Hard to say, without knowing how much the fluff changes will be reflected by changes in crunch. E.g., the current (3.5e) erinyes and succubus aren't terribly similar; mythologically speaking, they're absolutely different (vengeance-seeking furies vs. seductive sex fiends). But in 4e, they're absolutely the same [because there's only the one entity]. Hrm.

If they're going to make sizable changes in the planar cosmology, I hope they go ahead and give a good, clear explanation of the relationship between various outsiders and various deities. The current relationship just bugs me (are celestials the servants of good gods? Sometimes, but sometimes not, apparently. None of the fiends seem to be dedicated servants of evil gods, so when Hextor wants to smite someone, who does he send? He calls the temp service from Hell, apparently). Gods need servants to work through!

So, they're defining devils as fallen celestials; celestials are apparently servants of at least some gods; hopefully, evil gods get servants (that don't work for someone else), too. If "celestials" work for evil/malevolent/antagonist gods as well as good -- that's cool, too.

Also, I wonder if names like "Baator" are just going to be gone? Hopefully, yugoloth goes -- I always found it to feel too "made up", somehow.

So, if devils are humanoids, and insectile ice demons are somehow tied to yugoloths, I'm guessing yugoloths might be buggy fiends (or at least multilimbed). Demons -- demons will be big bestial things, rather than weapon wielders?

As a change to existing campaigns, I think this would be annoying & a bit aggravating. They said converting 3.5e campaign/adventure to 4e would be a lot of work, so they wouldn't be producing a conversion document; this shows a glimmer of why it will be so much work. It's not just mechanical changes! That's kind of aggravating, on the one hand (I have a whole lot of 3.x adventures I haven't ran, and I might prefer 4e to 3.x), but exciting on the other (new stuff!).

And I really liked the stuff Jacobs, Mona, & co. did in the Demonomicons (and in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends), and this greatly contradicts those (unless you can just pick up Malcanthet, Socothbenoth, etc., from Demonland and drop them into Devilville).

For whole new campaigns -- sounds cool. "Ultimates" cosmology -- I think I can dig it.

Also, it seems like it would fit okay in Eberron -- you just ignore the stuff about the origins of devils & Asmodeus & the Nine Hells (and you were already doing that in 3.5e!). The "humanoid/not humanoid" split makes at least as much sense for Eberron as "chaos/law". In Eberron, fiends can just be fiends, and "devil" vs. "demon" are just taxonomies created by mortals.


----------



## el-remmen (Aug 31, 2007)

The first thing about 4E I hear that I really like, but then again, I don't consider it a "rules" thing so does not improve or worsen my opinion of the system "so far".

It also closely mirrors the cosmology of Aquerra, except I did away with the devil/demon distinction entirely and were just words used by humans to describe these fiends.  When they fell from their angelic grace, there were those who still want to set up a new kingdom of rule, and those who wanted total freedom to do whatever they wanted and perhaps even destroy the cosmos itself.  The one who wanted to re-achieve their divine status (for their own ends) established the 'Stem of Hell' (divided into Nine easy pieces), and those who remained in 'the abyss' of chaos around it are sometimes called "demons".  So, in my game there have been pit fiend "demons" and succubus "devils". 

Also, don't see the big deal about the merge of the succubus and eryines - if you REALLY need to have both, then when the rules come out use the guidelines for making monsters and make them based on their old versions.  It is like an hour's work, TOPS!.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Aug 31, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Despite your particular predilections, I'm not sure how getting rid of the Planescape cosmology and backstory has *anything* at all to do with whether or not something is D&D.
> 
> I'm a huge Eberron fan, and that basically took Baator, and the Abyss, and Mount Celestia to the sacred slaughterhouse, and I'm pretty sure I was still playing D&D when we broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.
> 
> Or are you saying I wasn't actually playing D&D?




Heck, my campaign world is THE EARTH, far Far FAR in the future. The gods are the actual deities out of mythology....and alien gods. Monsters are the result of genetic engineering, or are aliens, or are from other planes. Demons are from HP Lovecrafts/RE Howwards "Outer Void of Cosmic Insanity". Magic just works. Why? Shoot, nobody even knows there was a time w/o magic.

And I'm pretty sure we were still playing D&D when the dwarven cleric,  elven fighter/rogue and human wizard broke in on the lizardman cult and saved the town.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The 3E Book of Fiends was also written by Chris Pramas, who has said his company will support 4E. While Erik's work is great, he's not the only one capable of hitting the ball out of the park on this subject.




FWIW, that's not quite true. 

The Book of Fiends was written by Aaron Loeb, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas, and Robert Schwalb. The devil section was mostly originally published as Legions of Hell, which was indeed written by Chris Pramas. However, most of the demon section was originally published as The Armies of the Abyss, which was written (entirely, AFAIK) by Erik Mona.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 31, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Yeah, one would almost think they were looking to piss off some bible belt people. Free Press FTW? A desperate try to make DnD cool in the eyes of the younger generation? Either way, I definitely like it




Please don't attempt to make this a regional battle, thanks.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.



I know others have said it before, but...

Why not? They _are_ too similar. I never could tell them apart, and unless you remind me of the name Pit Fiend, I tend to just call both of them Balor. Either they should change them _radically_ so that they are different, or roll them into one great incarnation of evil.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 31, 2007)

This is so stupid and pointless. I mean it's one thing not to like it, it's another when theres absolutely no reason for it. It's change for the sake of change, and it's a change in the wrong direction IMO. 

The earlier fluff was fine, more than fine and they butcher it. Why? This has been the way D&D has been for a while. It's part of the implied setting. If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game. What if they change goblins to be mischeavous fey, or make gorgons be the name of the race now called medusas or have dragons all be one fire breathing race? That's not D&D. That's a new game. Sure it might be intersing to change some of this stuff for you're home campaign or a campaign setting but go to far and you end up with Everquest or Warcraft or something else that can't be called D&D. I might want to DM Everquest or Warcraft, but I definetlty want to DM D&D and I expect WOTC to give me D&D. Otherwise they might as well sell the property and create they're own new fantasy RPG with whatever changes to the setting they want. The new rules are good, that's what a new edition should provide, not a completely new game. Leave this reimagining stuff for OGL products made by other companies.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> In any case, WotC are quite rightly not designing to try to appease the anti-D&D crowd....




I'm also slowly growing convinced they've decided to not to appease a sizeable segment of the pro-D&D crowd.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> IMO, there is one section of 'religious folk' whom WotC should be concerned about, and that's the segment who are _also_ gamers. As long as they don't drive them (okay, us) away, then they're okay.




WoTC isn't going to offend religious gamers. That'll continue to be done by other gamers who insult the religious by opining about "fundamentalists," describing certain Christians as "overly jumpy," and tossing out the tired perjorative "Bible thumper" (but, hey, at least they didn't lob a completely unwarranted insult at a talented, respected game designer).

This change to demons and devils is much ado about nothing. From the little real information in this thread, it's 99% style, 1% substance.


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 31, 2007)

I am also very much on board with the changes proposed...

Of course, I don't have any stake (from a game/campaign standpoint) in the Great Wheel or canon Planescape material.  I can understand why others would not desire these changes, but in the end I'm happy with the changes.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> Will skeletons be missing entirely from 4E because the Chinese censors banned them from WoW, and WOTC wants 4E to be easily portable to the global market?  (I'm not kidding about the Chinese censors either)



Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> FWIW, that's not quite true.
> 
> The Book of Fiends was written by Aaron Loeb, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas, and Robert Schwalb. The devil section was mostly originally published as Legions of Hell, which was indeed written by Chris Pramas. However, most of the demon section was originally published as The Armies of the Abyss, which was written (entirely, AFAIK) by Erik Mona.



My bad in not looking up the other authors; I misspoke when I suggested that only Pramas and Mona worked on it. No slight was intended to them.

My point stands, though: Erik, as awesome as he is, is not the only one capable of writing a 4E Book of Fiends by any means.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> This is so stupid and pointless. I mean it's one thing not to like it, it's another when theres absolutely no reason for it. It's change for the sake of change



It's a change for the sake of clarity. They're not doing it for you, they're doing it for new players.



> If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game.



So, Eberron isn't D&D? (As others have asked.)

Or the Wilderlands?

Or the Scarred Lands?

Or Dark Sun?

None of those are remotely the same world as the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.



> What if they change goblins to be mischeavous fey, or make gorgons be the name of the race now called medusas or have dragons all be one fire breathing race?



What if they change elves into elephants?

There's no point freaking out and deciding that everything's going to be turned upside down until you see it happen.

And in the 3E era, the Creature Catalogue has thrived here at ENWorld (and shown up in Dragon), reprinting the old fluff with modern crunch. The same thing will happen in 4E. No one is coming to your house, burning your books. Use whatever fluff you like. Ignore the succubus/erinyes thing and keep on truckin'.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> I'm also slowly growing convinced they've decided to not to appease a sizeable segment of the pro-D&D crowd.



Loud != Large

I honestly suspect that fewer people than you might think will be upset about this.

And, again, the point is to make D&D easier to pick up and get into few new players, which is something most people think is a very good idea, indeed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

> If you change the implied setting, face it you're not really playing the same game.




The implied setting has changed with every new edition since the beginning of the game.

In Basic, not all chromatic dragons were evil, and the only metallic was gold.

In 1E, there was no such thing as Baatezu or Tanar'ri.

The default setting of 2E was Forgotten Realms. It was Greyhawk in 1E and 3E. It was "The Known World" (which sort of became Mystara) in Basic.

Vecna was a dead lich in 1E, a demigod in 2E, and a god in 3E.

Numerous archfiends vanished or appeared between editions.

Only humans could be paladins until 3E.

Orcs changed from lawful evil to chaotic evil in 3E.

Kobolds didn't used to be reptiles related to dragons.

Half-orcs, monks, and assassins ceased to exist in the default setting from 1E to 2E, and returned from 2E to 3E.

Psionics _completely_ changed, not only in mechanics, but in flavor.

If you don't care for the implied setting changes we've heard about in 4E, that's your prerogative. But to claim that this is the first time such things have happened is simply inaccurate.


----------



## JoelF (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.





Actually, I read the story in the Associated Press, but unfortunately, I can't find a link to the original story anymore as it's too old and the news sites I use don't keep them around that long.  

Even if it was a false story, I made the remark in a humorous example.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 31, 2007)

One thing occurred to me.

Devil will be the weapon wielders.

Demons will not.

Currently, the top Devil, the Pit Fiend, has no weapons.

Currently, the top Demon, the Balor, wields weapons.

Will we see a switcheroo (moving the Balor away from his inspiration, the Balrog)? Will the top fiends not be representative of their kind?

Speculation begins... now.


----------



## Jer (Aug 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So you can see, Erinyes as temptress's with different wings WERE the norm until 3.5. Its also easy to see they DO share a similar position in the game: evil winged hawt woman of doom. And since succubi is a more familiar name, guess which one is being kept in 4e...




Thank you.  I was just heading to pore through my books to see if I was imagining things.  I couldn't figure out why so many people were insisting that erinyes and succubi filled such different roles, when I remembered erinyes as being basically devilish succubi.  And now I know why - the last time I used erinyes in any of my campaigns was when I was running a Planescape campaign back in the day - I haven't really looked at them since the 3.5 upgrade because I haven't needed them.  I thought I was losing my mind or something...


----------



## JoelF (Aug 31, 2007)

Another thing that bothers me about this change is the implication that:

a) this simplies and makes the demon/devil split more logical
b) that this will therefore make it easier for new players to learn the game

I have to refute these assumptions because:

a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons (in their historic and current incarnation at least) which are embodiments of chaotic evil - they don't HAVE to make sense, sicne chaos allows all sorts of forms, even hot human looking women demons. * 

b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, and espeically those women ones - they're just the same, so how can some be demons and some be devils"?  Personally, I think clearing up tough rules and makeing the game more faster are ways to get new players into the game easier, but this change is not going to impact new players in any way.

* - For this matter, perhaps maenads don't exist in 4E, because they are also hot women monsters which go and kill you.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm a little torn on this. I love making disparate things mesh and I like tying in the old history.

Outsider alignment subtypes, alignment DR, holy/unholy weapons and alignment spells are some of the only alignment things I like. I love hard defined alignment mechanics, I hate mushy alignment concepts and descriptions otherwise. The Blood War was the only non mechanical alignment thing I really liked and defined law vs. chaos concretely from a cosmos story perspective.

I was never really happy with the monstrous devils even with their Dante pedigree and always wanted better fluff for why they are the way they are. 

Making devils human but diabolic looking is a good way to do things, but description wise I think that makes them mostly succubi and arch devils and not a lot of anything they were before. I really don't see bone devils fitting in for example.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The implied setting has changed with every new edition since the beginning of the game.
> 
> In Basic, not all chromatic dragons were evil, and the only metallic was gold.
> 
> ...




From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works to be the same as changing kobolds from dogs to reptiles or changing a few details a about a character. It's a matter of scale. You can make the fruits in Trix spheres. But if you make them chocolate flavored, then you've got a completely different cereal.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works




D00d, I've been doing it for years. Trust me, after the first one, it gets much easier.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Thank you.  I was just heading to pore through my books to see if I was imagining things.  I couldn't figure out why so many people were insisting that erinyes and succubi filled such different roles, when I remembered erinyes as being basically devilish succubi.  And now I know why - the last time I used erinyes in any of my campaigns was when I was running a Planescape campaign back in the day - I haven't really looked at them since the 3.5 upgrade because I haven't needed them.  I thought I was losing my mind or something...




Your welcome (luckily, PDF books saved me a lot of typing.)

I recall for the LONGEST time thinking Erinyes were redundant since they were "hot women with feathered wings who tempt you to damnation" vs. "hot women with bat wings who tempt you to damnation." I was a big fan of the 3.5 mythology (the descendants of a fallen angel) since it gave them something DIFFERENT to do. However, if they are looking to trim some fat, Erinyes/Succubi as one creature CERTAINLY fits the bill. I Hope Imp/Quasit gets the same treatment, I'm ambivalent about pit fiend/balor though. 

Also, one of my players (when he was just starting) called every erinyes in Planescape a succubus, often (out of game) forgetting the difference (no this one has feather wings, its a completely different monster). He did catch on, btw...

I was also a bigger fan of the succubi since in almost every edition, the art on the succubi was better, but that's just being petty.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> From a certain point of view, maybe. But I don't consider completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works to be the same as changing kobolds from dogs to reptiles or changing a few details a about a character.




And I don't consider changing the origin story of devils, or swapping a few creatures between demon and devil status, to be "completely tearing apart the cosmology and basic assumptions of how the universe works."

It's a change. It's not nearly as big of a chance as people are making it out to be. It _might_ imply larger changes. It might not.

(And actually, even the cosmology changed between editions. Various planes have been added, removed, and moved.)

I'm sure there'll be _some_ cosmology changes in 4E; that's part and parcel of changing alignment, which they've already said they're doing. But what those changes are, and how far-reaching they are, is still unknown.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that turned out to be a misunderstanding turned into an urban legend.




Nope, I recently watched an interview with Bill Roper (one of the makers of Hellgate: London) who said the exact same thing.  They had to modify their game because the Chinese goverment forbids exposed bone.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> What if they change goblins to be mischeavous fey,




I'd at least look at it with interest, though I wouldn't necessarily use it.



> or make gorgons be the name of the race now called medusas




I'm all for it, actually.  The current way feels so darn illiterate.



> or have dragons all be one fire breathing race?




While I wouldn't want to see just one race of dragons, I could definitely stand to get away from the color-coded strait-jacket we've been in so many years.  I usually ditch the metallics (except sometimes the gold, for the Orient), and make the chromatics more interesting and give them more varied personalities.

ie, you don't have "red dragons", you have "mountain dragons", with a variety of scale colors and attitudes.



> That's not D&D. That's a new game.




Sorry, I couldn't disagree more.  The game is the crunch.  The fluff is ... the fluff.  There might be some limits to just how far you can stretch certain kinds of fluff over certain kinds of crunch, but I don't think we've reached them yet.  Not even close.

EDIT:  Actually, I take it back.  We have.  We've tried many times to adapt classic fantasy fluff to absurdly idiosyncratic D&D crunch.  Arthurian romance with Vancian magic, forsooth!

I hope that 4e will be more adapatable to classic fantasy, rather than trying to force it the other way around.


----------



## Jer (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I have to refute these assumptions because:
> 
> a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons ...
> 
> b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, ...




I don't think I've ever heard a player complain about the distinction.  Most of the players I've had in the past have either been hardcore gamers who have been reading Monster Manuals since Junior High or are such casual gamers that they might not even realize that the fact that I'm using two different works for "demon" might mean that they're seeing two different types of creatures.  (And probably wouldn't care if they were told there was a difference).

I've heard of a few folks who have thought about becoming DMs complain about stuff like this, though.  In fact, I know one White Wolf player who decided that all the little idiosyncrasies about D&D monsters grated on him just enough to not bother ever DMing (though he's perfectly willing to play D&D, or to run World of Darkness or Exalted stuff - he won't run D&D).

But anecdotes aren't data, so I'm not going to try to argue that these folks are any kind of large base being alienated by current D&D tropes.  I think a better question is what does keeping the mostly arbitrary distinctions that have grown up around demons and devils add to the game?  What harm does the addition of this kind of fluff do to the game?

(To admit my own biases, I came into the game via Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters D&D.  My view of the game was heavily colored by the idea that I should be building my own world including my own planar geography.  The whole idea introduced in 2e that all of the D&D settings were linked together in some kind of grand cosmology - whether through Planescape or through Spelljammer - was foreign to me, and really kind of an unwelcome assumption that I often had to dissuade players of during the mid-90s when they sat at my table.  That's probably at least part of the reason why I don't see why any of this stuff should make much difference - it's just fluff and I've been modifying fluff in every D&D product I've bought since I started in this hobby.  And, in the long run, fluff is a heck of a lot easier and more fun to modify than mechanics are in my book.)


----------



## Pale (Aug 31, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> How many RW religions have a dead or murdered deity? Is it the angels rebelling thing? So did the greek gods against the titans. Lots of mythic parallels to draw on.
> I like the changes of combining the succubus and the eryines and giving a greater difference between demons and devils. I don't like the ad hoc Ice Devils are really demons but we fudged it, so they're devils.




If you look closely, all mythic parallels are real world religions.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 31, 2007)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> I'd at least look at it with interest, though I wouldn't necessarily use it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then obviously 1e, 2e and 3e are completely seperate games.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 31, 2007)

My gut reaction to these changes is negative, mainly because it makes me concerned that the changes to monsters will be such that my miniatures, art and fluff books will lose utility.  But if this is what it takes to get rid of mechanical effects for alignment and for more logical and useful good outsiders, then I might learn to accept it.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> Then obviously 1e, 2e and 3e are completely seperate games.



I tend to view them in exactly that manner. While there is a spiritual link, they are fundamentally different games.


----------



## zibeck (Aug 31, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> The problem is that all future products will be written with the above changes as the baseline, which means that it is highly unlikely 4E will be able to provide me with a sourcebook which deals with planar issues which is compatible with twenty years of previously published fluff. If Baator is a dead god's realm, that means that Great Wheel is either gone altogether, or changed to the point of non-recognition.
> 
> Oh, and... if this is what they are doing to devils and demons, imagine what they're doing to the four breeds of celestials. Did I say four? Hmmm... I suspect only aasimon (angels) will survive the cut unchanged.




Well said.


----------



## marionde (Aug 31, 2007)

How much of the 30 years of D&D fluff can be changed before the game is called D&D in name only?

If you change to much you lose the connection that makes this game Dungeons and Dragons instead of just a sword and sorcery RPG.

The main draw to me about this game has been the levels of lore that has been built up over time by many very creative individuals.  I think the value of the brand is in the history, not the number crunching.

It appears I may finally make the transition to a grognard with the introduction of 4e.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> Another thing that bothers me about this change is the implication that:
> 
> a) this simplies and makes the demon/devil split more logical
> b) that this will therefore make it easier for new players to learn the game
> ...



This is the best argument for the "nay" side on the thread so far.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> Then obviously 1e, 2e and 3e are completely seperate games.




Largely, yes.  Obviously there are links of continuity, ownership, community, and so on.  But they *are* different games.  Playing 3e is not at all the same experience as playing 1e.  Otherwise would you even have people who refuse to convert?

1e and 2e were, of course, much closer to each other than either is to 3e.

EDIT:  Maybe we need a thread on "The Essence of D&D".  I think I'll start one right now.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 31, 2007)

I have to say, the more I think about the fluff change the more I like it. I never cared for the Blood War, never looked at the 3.5 erinyes (which is a shame because that is a much cooler devil than previous) and I have always wanted a greater difference to devils and demons. 
As more information comes trickling in, I find I like more than I dislike. But, 4E will be a much different game. Summon another Celestial Bison, sacred cow is the only thing on the menu. At least for now.
See I think WotC is getting the 'big changes' leaked out now. I think as we get closer to release we will find that the actual changes to the game were limited. We just get 8 months to chew on it. Vent. And come to accept 4E as a the next edition of D&D.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

marionde said:
			
		

> How much of the 30 years of D&D fluff can be changed before the game is called D&D in name only?
> 
> If you change to much you lose the connection that makes this game Dungeons and Dragons instead of just a sword and sorcery RPG.
> 
> ...



If you ask me, I say they can change the "fluff" of D&D entirely and it would still be the same game. After all, that is exactly what many DMs do all the time anyways.

For many people (I would guess most), D&D is not a setting. It is a rules system. So long as you use the same ruleset, you are playing the same game.

I mean, I have never used _any_ of the outer planes in one of my homebrew games, I would never use Sigil, the demon/devil distinction is insignificant, there is no Blood War, I don't use PHB gods, I would never refer to the "classic" archfiends like Asmodeus, and I would completely scrap the idea of the Far Realms and avoid using 99% of all Aberrations, including Mind Flayers and Beholders. I would be happier if there was no assumption of planes at all in the core rules.

However, it would never cross my mind that doing all of this somehow makes the game "not D&D". I would not even have to change a single rule, other than me simply omitting certain monsters and a very small number of spells.

As a whole, I find the notion that every D&D campaign must be part of Planescape to be verging on insulting. Why set the double-standard of "Make your own world!" and "Outside of your world, it has to be canonical Planescape!"? It doesn't make any sense to me. Why should I even care that Planescape exists, when I don't like the setting, and most of the material for it was written before I even got into D&D? Why should the game be chained to _a single setting_ from the past, when even mighty Greyhawk has fallen away from the center stage?

I mean, even the idea of D&D style planes is foreign to the fantasy genre as a whole. On a certain board of the D&D forums where D&D and Magic the Gathering players joined together to make a new setting, the D&D players had to explain the idea of D&D planes to the Magic the Gathering players, because even a game dominated by beings called Planeswalkers has a completely alien and incompatible idea of what planes are. I don't even need to get into the complete mythological faultiness of the concept.

Not to mention the wierdness of the term "Outsider", and how it has lead to such nonsensical terminology as "native Outsider".

Argh... Sorry if my post just came across as rude. I don't intend for it to be so. But it was a bit of a catharsis...


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> See I think WotC is getting the 'big changes' leaked out now. I think as we get closer to release we will find that the actual changes to the game were limited. We just get 8 months to chew on it. Vent. And come to accept 4E as a the next edition of D&D.




Grognard rope-a-dope?


----------



## Ctenosaur (Aug 31, 2007)

If the familiar alignment system is going away in 4E, then shouldn't the Great Wheel cosmology follow?


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Aug 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> _*** re-read post 287 above ***_




Hear, hear!

Well spoken.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> Another thing that bothers me about this change is the implication that:
> 
> a) this simplies and makes the demon/devil split more logical
> b) that this will therefore make it easier for new players to learn the game
> ...




You're right. It doesn't simplify the game. The fluff is not rules so there is no simplification to be had. 
But have you ever had a new player ask "What's the difference between demons, devils and yugoloths?" I have and I energetically began explaining the Great Wheel and the Blood War. The new player's eyes glazed over and I relented on the deluge. "So they have different alignment teams. Gotcha." Isn't that magical. ;P 
There is a lot of contradictory backstory to evil outsiders. A nice simple story to differentiate devils and demons would be nice. The new player's response now might be "Devils are trapped masterminds and demons are vicious brutes. Gotcha." Still not flavorful or accurate but it doesn't need a lengthy canon lecture to get there. 
Planescape cosmology -philes will want a setting book to do justice to 10+ years of development. Even if 4E stayed completely loyal to previous editions fluff the MM descriptions would have errors due to brevity. Why not make a clean break with a new edition and make the Blood War and aligned planes a setting book or a new incarnation of MotP.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 31, 2007)

Just to stick my oar in.

I think it's time for a change. Shake stuff up. Change is good. I endorse post #287.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 31, 2007)

I disagree. Changing something to make a sticky point better is good, but this seems like change purely for it's own sake; that they want demons and devils to just feel new - that I don't like, as it's the appearance of a substantive change without being one.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 31, 2007)

Ctenosaur said:
			
		

> If the familiar alignment system is going away in 4E, then shouldn't the Great Wheel cosmology follow?



IMO, not necessarily, but it is very reasonable.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree. Changing something to make a sticky point better is good, but this seems like change purely for it's own sake; that they want demons and devils to just feel new - that I don't like, as it's the appearance of a substantive change without being one.




Maybe they just feel this new idea is cooler and fresher than the old? Honestly, sometimes that's all the reason for change an artist/writer requires.

That doesn't mean people have to like it, of course, and there are certainly plenty of _other_ reasons for change. But I think there's a difference between "change for its own sake" and "change because the creators felt the new idea was better."


----------



## Branduil (Aug 31, 2007)

I don't care much for the great wheel, so this is fine by me. In fact it already has my mind thinking of ways to use and modify this for my own.


----------



## Pale (Aug 31, 2007)

I don't mind this change at all. Planescape was only really around for 1 edition and most of it's cosmology was 'kinda sorta' there for 3rd. The only thing (I think) that really made it was the Blood War and funky names for Demons, Devils and Daemons (Tanar'ri and so forth).

Even then Tanar'ri, Baatezu and Yugoloths were only subsets of a greater whole with more subsets being introduced all the time... which was wonderful, really.

I still have, and use, the Planescape box sets and I have a slew of other fiendish references outside of D&D cannon from Green Ronin and Necromancer Games that I intend on continuing to use no matter where Evil resides. Let the lore contradict itself, I say, it's far more interesting that way and a much more plausable reason for a war between the types. (I'm sure that you fine folk can think of many wars that raged over a "my history/myth is way more accurate than your history/myth".)

I also predict that Shade and BOZ will have an Erinyes conversion up on the conversions board with a plausable back story inside of a month of the 4E MMI release.


----------



## Mortellan (Aug 31, 2007)

If it isn't broke don't fix it I say.


----------



## Lancelot (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm open to change, but as many other posters have already said... I'm concerned at the potential invalidation of so much rich prior "fluff".

2e (mainly Planescape) changed a lot of the fluff, as was well pointed-out by a prior poster. The archdevils vanished for a time, demons became tanar'ri, and so forth. But fundamentally, there was room to bring a lot of that stuff back in. There was nothing in Planescape which said that Asmodeus wasn't still there ("Unnamed Lord of the Ninth")... they were still "really" demons... Baator was "really" the Nine Hells...

The same is true of the 3e changes to 2e. Moloch was replaced by the Hag-Countess, who was then replaced by Glasya. But there was some story to explain it. Change is fine, but change with some back-story to help that all-important "suspension of disbelief". 

What I'm worried about is if this is a complete retcon to the point that there are no CE succubi any more... and no LE erinyes-that-are-winged-avengers-with-swords. And furthermore, that they *never existed in the first place*. Where did they all go? What happens to the 12 pages of my Fiendish Codex which details Malcanthet and the other succubi lords in detail? Please don't tell me the whole Blood War was just a fever dream, and that no such conflict exists any more...

I'm okay with the change if they provide us with some tools or fluff to help explain it. Maybe the Succubi defect en masse to the devils. Maybe they were diabolic "double-agents" in the Abyss all along! Or maybe there are some Succubus Devils that "defect" and become CE, explaining why they can be found in the Abyss as well. I'm good with any of that, as long as the answer isn't simply: "Succubi aren't found on the Abyss, they never were found on the Abyss, and Malcanthet doesn't exist any more."

Sure, I know that you can have whatever you want for your home campaigns... but it's not quite the same.

Tangent: Hmmm... what does this mean for Graz'zt? If there's a more devilish demon-prince (humanoid form, weapon-using, intelligent, seductive), than I don't know it. Could more than just the rank-and-file troops be "switching sides"???


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

Lancelot said:
			
		

> What I'm worried about is if this is a complete retcon to the point that there are no CE succubi any more... and no LE erinyes-that-are-winged-avengers-with-swords. And furthermore, that they *never existed in the first place*. Where did they all go?




Already answered.


----------



## Lancelot (Aug 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Already answered.




Hyuk huk. Nice. Forgot all about that one...

Well, that settles it for me. If 4e doesn't bring back the flumph, it's dead to me. DEAD, I say!!!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons (in their historic and current incarnation at least) which are embodiments of chaotic evil - they don't HAVE to make sense, sicne chaos allows all sorts of forms, even hot human looking women demons. *



That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.) 



> b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, and espeically those women ones - they're just the same, so how can some be demons and some be devils"?  Personally, I think clearing up tough rules and makeing the game more faster are ways to get new players into the game easier, but this change is not going to impact new players in any way.



As someone who's brought in a half-dozen players in the last two years, I will state with absolute conviction that a large number of D&Disms that many veteran players don't even notice cause new players to say "whaaaa?" When bringing folks into my Midwood campaign, it was the D&Disms, not the setting-specific stuff, that regularly stopped the game for a round of "whaaaaa?"

A previous Design & Development article mentioned WotC watching newbies play with just the books from behind a one-way mirror. While they had fun, they got a lot of it backwards and they had a whole lot of "whaaaa?" moments.

"Whaaaa?" moments should always be intentional, and the result of a DM intentionally slinging a curveball, not because of the cruft of a 30 year old game.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Making devils human but diabolic looking is a good way to do things, but description wise I think that makes them mostly succubi and arch devils and not a lot of anything they were before. I really don't see bone devils fitting in for example.



Make them emaciated pale humans with tiny horns and a barbed tail with a scorpion tail tip, perhaps?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 31, 2007)

Terraism said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think that D&D's legacy of lore and cut-and-paste, wedge-the-square-peg-into-the-round-hole mythos actually _does_ do the game any favours.  In fact, I think it's quite the opposite - that it alienates, or at least confuses, newcomers.  So, for my part, yes.  Throw the 30 years of flavour out the window - those of us who want it can put it back in, and it makes the game more accessible.



The D&D universe (and multiverse) is a beautiful synthesis of many different sources that makes something unique. Rather than alienate, newcomers to the game with some familiarity with some of those sources have an instant starting reference point for the "flavor" of the game.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 31, 2007)

Brian Gibbons said:
			
		

> I will be interested to see the details of this backstory.
> 
> Personally, were I to use this in a campaign, the god would have been an extremely LG deity who snapped and began killing other deities (primarily neutral and other good deities) that did not measure up to his high standards.  His angelic servants, horrified at his actions, realized eventually that they were the only ones who could stand up against this perversion of justice and finally mustered up the courage and power to move against him, though not before he had slain eight other deities and absorbed their realms into his own.



And now this god is imprisoned in an icy lake at the bottom of Hell, with his three-faceted head chewing in each mouth the greatest traitors of all time . . .


----------



## Mephistopheles (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about on this one. We still have our previous materials and can do whatever we want at our own tables. I'm fine with them changing some of this stuff up. More potential ideas in the inspirational cook pot for me.

(As an aside, this move does make one thing very clear: the 4E designers have been charmed by Erinyes (I don't know the plural for it but it doesn't matter because they no longer exist), their first order to proclaim that Erinyes no longer exist to cover up the plot, and then to go on to reorganize the ranks of devils and demons so that they make sense. When such a sensible and logical operation of organization is inflicted upon the hordes of the Abyss the Blood War comes to an end and Hell is victorious. Touche Asmodeus!)


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 31, 2007)

Could there be any doubt that the Lord of the Ninth wins? I mean, he's the frickin' Yankees of the Hells (although his prestige class kind of sucks).


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 31, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Bah! A good skald always takes what is familiar and builds his story from that. It's not like they are going to copy text verbatim out of any religious texts. It's still a new story, but built on a somewhat familiar foundation.
> 
> Shakespeare was copying old stories for most of his work. Do you consider him lazy as well?



Quite right! Plots are common property. Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" is a take on Plautus's (a poet of the New Greek Comedy genre) "The Brothers Menaechmus," for instance.

Recall in the film, "Shakespeare in Love," that after hearing the outline of a plot for an upcoming play, a listener replied, "Oh, I've seen that one." To which was replied, "Yes, but this time it's by Shakespeare!"


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.)
> 
> A previous Design & Development article mentioned WotC watching newbies play with just the books from behind a one-way mirror. While they had fun, they got a lot of it backwards and they had a whole lot of "whaaaa?" moments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Let's be honest for two seconds : DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT EVEN WITH A "BETTER" 4.X or 5.X or Y.X EDTIION ANY NEW PLAYER CAN LEARN A THREE HUGE (200+) BOOK SYSTEM WITHOUT ERROR ?????
> 
> In any events, it is bad to let newbies on any RPG game without some outside help.
> 
> So this argument makes no sense at all to me.



Just because some error is inevitable, why is it a bad idea to minimize the errors?

And there has to be a Player Zero. Not everyone can learn the game from someone else. If nothing else, there simply aren't enough gamers scattered evenly across the world and advertising that fact in case someone wants to learn the game from them.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 31, 2007)

I learned a lot about D&D from the pages of Dragon Magazine (at my public library) long before I actually was able to buy any of the official rules. Combined with my voracious reading/playing of the old Endless Quest series of books, I was "ready" for the D&D world by the time I stared playing "for real."


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm a bit torn on these news. On one hand, I'm a Planescape fan, and these changes obviously don't fit that cosmology; on the other hand, the changes seem pretty good on their own. So, at the moment, I'm Neutral w. Optimist tendencies. 

As for the Erinyes / Succubus thing, it's true they've been redundant in (A)D&D from the beginning. One personal explanation I had for them was that Erinyi were specifically created devils, intended to mimic the original and wildly successful succubae. 

Their methods of predation were different, as well: the succubus corrupts you (and the society around you) by tempting you with lust and making you feel everything is acceptable, so that in the end you're doing unmentionable things to small animals, breeding half-fiends and generally having an Abyssal time.

The erinyes, in contrast, focuses on making you (and the society) repressed, guilt-ridden and ashamed of every sexual thought or action, until nothing is acceptable, and therefore all sins are equal; this leads to exact same things as the Abyssal seduction, except that you're going to maintain a veneer of excessive respectability and enjoy your damnation considerably less.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> You're right. It doesn't simplify the game. The fluff is not rules so there is no simplification to be had.
> But have you ever had a new player ask "What's the difference between demons, devils and yugoloths?" I have and I energetically began explaining the Great Wheel and the Blood War. The new player's eyes glazed over and I relented on the deluge. "So they have different alignment teams. Gotcha." Isn't that magical. ;P




May I suggest an alternative?

"The Devils are like the Vorlons, the Demons the Shadows. They're both immensely powerful, and ancient, and Evil, but where the Devils want to enslave the multiverse in a realm of absolute Evil and order, the Demons want to drag everything down into seething madness. Obviously, they can't both get what they want, so they're constantly at war.

"And the Yugoloths? Fiendish mercenaries, playing both sides against the middle."

The weakness of the analogy is that Babylon 5 finished some ten years ago, but the rest is quick and simple enough for almost everyone to grasp immediately... and probably covers about as much as the average _character_ would know of the distinction anyway.


----------



## Victim (Aug 31, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Their methods of predation were different, as well: the succubus corrupts you (and the society around you) by tempting you with lust and making you feel everything is acceptable, so that in the end you're doing unmentionable things to small animals, breeding half-fiends and generally having an Abyssal time.
> 
> The erinyes, in contrast, focuses on making you (and the society) repressed, guilt-ridden and ashamed of every sexual thought or action, until nothing is acceptable, and therefore all sins are equal; this leads to exact same things as the Abyssal seduction, except that you're going to maintain a veneer of excessive respectability and enjoy your damnation considerably less.




I'd tend to think that individual seducer fiends would vary their approach based on the target's beliefs, morals, and culture.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.)




Well, fair enough. But the more they design the game for the benefit of _people who don't even play the game_, the less this long time player wants to play in their new world order.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Well, fair enough. But the more they design the game for the benefit of _people who don't even play the game_, the less this long time player wants to play in their new world order.



But then, the long time player can ignore fluff, because he knows the alternative. As I do, when I play Eberron. Or FR.

This somehow rougher, less intricate implied setting has its own kind of charm. Especially if you open the box first, and get a sense of wonder due to the implied setting, because you don't know anything else about it.

And for that, together with "Points of Light", I daresay that the new direction is a better fit. Though they should keep the erinyes.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Soel (Aug 31, 2007)

I dig it thus far.

I suggest making demons be on an entirely different level as devils, more like primal forces and less connected to deities and reborn (if you will,) souls. Mechanically, perhaps like the Hordlings were (table-based appearance and abilities,) with the current named types being the group names of ones with similar traits. You could alternately make a handful of templates to slap on pre-existing base forms (named types,) for different results. 


I hope we lose alignment as a rules mechanic as well.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 31, 2007)

For someone who reads no d&d fiction what so ever, 3.5 demons and devils were so sterile  and arbitrarily different, it made me want to vomit. I like this new revision as it its closer to real life religions, and has more a familiarity. Its a good revision and its not pointless.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But then, the long time player can ignore fluff, because he knows the alternative. As I do, when I play Eberron. Or FR.




Of course. If I don't like the fluff I can use the old stuff, or write my own, or whatever. If I don't like the rules changes, I can house rule whatever I feel I need to.

But there comes a point where I declare that it's just not worth it, and stick with the previous edition, or write my own system whole-cloth, or just give up entirely. None of which are particularly appealing options.


----------



## Eridanis (Aug 31, 2007)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> Just to stick my oar in.
> 
> I think it's time for a change. Shake stuff up. Change is good. I endorse post #287.



I'd love to ask the 4E design team if your story hour had some inspiration for this decision. This new approach is different from Wyre's cosmology, but I would not be surprised if the approach you took with your world made them take the hard look at the current system, and ask themselves "can we make this make more sense, and cooler?"

Even if they responded with "Sepulcrave who?", I think this approach creates a whole new level of flavor and storytelling possibilities.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But I'm going to miss my erinyes, because they've hit a sweet spot for me (much more than the succubi).




From what the info reads, though, they probably threw the succubi, and started calling the Erinyes Succubi.  So you probably get your way...

Really, not wanting to sound insulting, but sounding anyway, this whole thread is _such_ a tempest in a teacup...  I like the Blood War, and if the designers say it's ended, then it's fine; when _my_ players go to the Planes, the Blood War is still going on.  After all, what do ignorant Primes know about the Multiverse?


----------



## Aexalon (Aug 31, 2007)

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> From what the info reads, though, they probably threw the succubi, and started calling the Erinyes Succubi.  So you probably get your way...



From what it reads to me (and they'd've done better to phrase it this way), is they scrapped the demonic Succubus, renamed the Brachina (the pleasure devil from FC:II) Succubus, and delayed the Erinyes for publishing in 4E MM2 as proper vengeance devil. Or, as I like to put it, in terms of mortal sins (for that nice judeo-christian angle): Succubus = lust, Erinyes = wrath.

& while I'm on my soap-box: I'm under the distinct impression that the nature of primorial Chaotic Evil has gotten seriously watered down over the editions. Imho, demons don't tempt mortals; demons eat mortals, no questions asked. Lolth (and drow), Grazzt & Malcateth should have been neutral evil at best; their current stature as demons is, again imho, irreconcileable with the societal structures they maintain. One cannot scheme without structure to scheme against. And structure is the very anathema of chaos.

In a LE court, you're guilty when you get caught; in a NE court, you're guilty if the other guy's more powerful than you are; in a CE court, the judge eats you!


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Aug 31, 2007)

Just to add my voice/writing/text to the mix...

I like the concept of the changes and can see why they are doing it.  I got the alignment aspect of the Demon/Devil devide, but never really got why some were on one side or the other.  It just seemed arbitrary and I could never tell you what side any one monster was on; and that was a problem.  If memorization is the only way to tell if a critter is a Demon or a Devil that smells of bad design (that said - I'm fully for one or two Demons and Devils that resemble the other side and can act as infiltrators but they shoudl be the exception and not the rule).

I also hope they bring the Erinyes back quickly.  As they stood (in D&D) they were redundent alongside the Succubus.  But taking them off the table for a bit gives WotC a chance to bring them back as a critter that more closely matches their mythological origins.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Chaos/Order is absolutely obscure unless you're one of an increasingly aging pool of Elric readers. Given the number of alignment threads here over the years, I'd say it's fair to say a lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around it, especially when, between devils and demons, they're both bad guys whose primary issue boils down to "you should be MY kind of bad."



Maybe it's because I avoid the alignment discussion threads, but I really fail to see how chaos/order is really that hard to grasp. Maybe I just give people too much credit. 

And although Elric is one of the more popular explorations of the dichotomy it goes far beyond just those works, so it's not just an "aging pool of Elric readers" who see chaos/order as interesting of a conflict as good/evil. Heck, Babylon 5 got five years of television out of it, and that was inspired by ancient myths of the original Babylon. So Moorcock is certainly didn't invent that conflict and isn't the only one to explore it.


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2007)

Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?

To me, that it just begging for metagaming.   Plus, with so much cry for "sense of wonder", where's the wonder in that?


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?




You can't subvert people's expectations if they don't have any expectations to begin with.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?



Because, if they are not the same, they should not look the same ? And, if they are repsentatives of two different races, then there should be some common traits for those races ? I always had a hard time figuring a succube becoming a glabrezu because she seduced and corrupted some random mortal...

Note that I like the "two forms" idea I have see here and there, which each kind of outsider having an humanoid form and another one very different.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?




As a couple others have said - if they are supposed to be different than they should be different.  If Elves and Dwarves and Humans and Halflings are all different in description so much so that the casual observer is able to tell the differance when they (at least in 3.X) are all Humanoids; why is there the large mish-mash that is the collection of Demons and Devils?

If the PC isn't supposed to be able to tell what a monster is (as in Dragon or Kobald or Demon or Devil - I'm not asking for stat blocks to be printed on a critter's forehead) then that should be the purpose of the monster - to confuse the player... like the Changeling or Doppleganger.  It shouldn't feel like the designer threw a dart and this one landed on "Demon" while the last dart landed on "Devil".


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 31, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I wonder whats next the powers that be decide that Balors and Pit Fiends are too much alike and decide one of them has got to go? I don't like it.



I'm receiving a premonition of the 4E monster manual... ah, it's the entry for "dragon". Hmm... 



			
				4E MM said:
			
		

> *Dragon*
> 
> Breath Weapon: Roll on Table 1a and 1b.
> 
> ...



Yep, they cover similar territory, so why bother making them any different? Who cares if we published *an entire book* explaining how different and unique they can be used in people's games?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 31, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> It wasn't intended to be. Please don't ascribe motives.









  I didn't.


			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> In terms of what Wormwood said (not WotC with 4e), if you're wanting to redefine basic creatures in the game, the CE and LE fiends in this case, because you don't see how they're different from one another when those differences are pretty obvious from just the material in the MM and maybe the MotP at most, maybe you'll find something more tailored to your ideas elsewhere. Without even going into any in-game history, their basic motivations and attitudes w/ respect to one another and how they interact with mortals including PCs, is part of their core being. If you want to erase most of that apparently, a different system with different core assumptions for basic monsters might be more appropriate.



I think possibly you've spent too much time with Planescape if you assign such priority and importance to whether or not erinyes and succubus are separate creatures.  There's nothing intrinsically "D&D" about either creature, frankly, and certainly nothing intrinsically D&D about keeping them separate.  Telling me that "why don't I just go find another system" (what does system have to do with anything we're talking about anyway?) is frankly something that I find bizarre in this case.  Losing erinyes because the designers felt they were too similar in concept to the succubus is: at most, an incredibly esoteric, fringe, tiny minor detail, unless your campaign is completely founded on the difference between demons and devils.

Knowing what I do of you, Shemeska, that may be so.  But if you assume that it's something that matters to most of the rest of D&D players, I'm going to say that I think you're probably wrong there.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?




Dragons are colour-coded for our convenience, so why not demons and devils also?


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> I'm receiving a premonition of the 4E monster manual... ah, it's the entry for "dragon". Hmm...
> 
> 
> Yep, they cover similar territory, so why bother making them any different? Who cares if we published *an entire book* explaining how different and unique they can be used in people's games?



 You know... every time I've used a dragon, it's been pretty much just a _dragon_, without any of the gigantic edifice of a dozen chromatic and metallic types, conflicts, organisations and whatnot built up over 25 years of other people's campaigns. So you may be on to something here.


----------



## Gez (Aug 31, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> No, they're not. Gnomes are going to be in the first Monster Manual. The fact that they won't be in the first PH doesn't mean they won't be a playable race. In fact, I am fairly positive they will be presented as a playable race in the FR Player's Guide (due out after the 4E FRCS, probably in September).




I hope not. Forgotten Realms gnomes _used_ to be interesting, but ever since they've replaced humans as the denizens of Lantan, they've turned into just a copy of Dragonlance tinkers.

Which I hate with the fiery passion of one thousand supernovae.

Eberron gnomes, that's another story.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> That makes no sense to me. Let's look at mythology:
> 
> - Succubi are temptresses, enticing mortals to fall into damnation through the promise of carnal pleasure.
> 
> ...



Territory as in the same metaphore in the Monty Pythons. Succubi and Erinyes both have _huge tracts of land_.   



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Maybe someone on the WOTC staff has femdom fantasies... Look for a lot of leather and a whip in the new illustration.
> 
> Of course, the Drow sort of cover that territory already...




Let's fold them with the Succubi!



			
				Kvantum said:
			
		

> Well, that's all folks. I'm out. Goodbye, good night, that's it. I'm done with even the idea of 4e. This is just a STUPID change to make that completely invalidates all the old material on the planes. To hell with it, and to hell with WotC. I'll stick with 3.5 for... well, as long as it takes for them to realize all these changes are a bad idea. (See you in 2010 or so.)




See sig.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I think pit fiends are too iconic as devils for them to be "demon transplants."




But then again, one might have thought succubi too iconic as demons for them to become "devil transplants"...



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> What if they change elves into elephants?



Then the long-lived critters with huge ears would be replaced by long-lived critters with huge ears. I don't see the change.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> One thing occurred to me.
> 
> Devil will be the weapon wielders.
> 
> ...




And what of the Marilith?



			
				The Shadow said:
			
		

> I'm all for it, actually.  The current way feels so darn illiterate.




Change that to "over-literate" and I could agree. Gorgons as metallic bulls comes from medieval bestiaries...


----------



## Jer (Aug 31, 2007)

Aexalon said:
			
		

> From what it reads to me (and they'd've done better to phrase it this way), is they scrapped the demonic Succubus, renamed the Brachina (the pleasure devil from FC:II) Succubus, and delayed the Erinyes for publishing in 4E MM2 as proper vengeance devil. Or, as I like to put it, in terms of mortal sins (for that nice judeo-christian angle): Succubus = lust, Erinyes = wrath.




I suspect it's something like this, though I bet they just moved the demonic Succubus to being a devil.  The Erinyes will probably show up (something has to go into MM II, III, IV, V, VI, etc.), and hopefully it will be as terrifying as the Erinyes of myth, and not a succubus with different wings (as I was remined yesterday when I pulled out my Planescape MC to see what the big difference was between the two of them -- bat wings vs. feathered wings in the grand scheme of things.  Both of them looked like Victoria Secrets models, actually...)



			
				Aexalon said:
			
		

> & while I'm on my soap-box: I'm under the distinct impression that the nature of primorial Chaotic Evil has gotten seriously watered down over the editions. Imho, demons don't tempt mortals; demons eat mortals, no questions asked. Lolth (and drow), Grazzt & Malcateth should have been neutral evil at best; their current stature as demons is, again imho, irreconcileable with the societal structures they maintain. One cannot scheme without structure to scheme against. And structure is the very anathema of chaos.




Eh, I think this is all more personal taste.  I mean, the source of the Law/Chaos stuff in D&D comes from the work of folks like Moorcock and Zelazny.  It's been a long time since I read either one, but the various representatives of Chaos never seemed quite as disorganized or unstructured as one might think from the name -- the names seemed to represent two sides of an argument based on degree, not polar opposites.  I mean, Elric's people were on the side of Chaos, yet they built a huge empire and maintained it for thousands of years.  And the Chaos Lords who showed up rarely seemed like swirling masses of unstructured madness, but instead scheming demons with plots and plans that spanned millenia.

In other words, I don't think that it's been watered down over the years, I think it's always been kind of watery.  That's part of why I'm glad that they're looking at de-emphasizing alignment in the new edition - fantasy has moved on in ways that D&D hasn't, and the alignment system is trying to be too many things beyond what it was originally designed for.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 31, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> (To admit my own biases, I came into the game via Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters D&D.  My view of the game was heavily colored by the idea that I should be building my own world including my own planar geography.  The whole idea introduced in 2e that all of the D&D settings were linked together in some kind of grand cosmology - whether through Planescape or through Spelljammer - was foreign to me, and really kind of an unwelcome assumption that I often had to dissuade players of during the mid-90s when they sat at my table.  That's probably at least part of the reason why I don't see why any of this stuff should make much difference - it's just fluff and I've been modifying fluff in every D&D product I've bought since I started in this hobby.  And, in the long run, fluff is a heck of a lot easier and more fun to modify than mechanics are in my book.)



Wow, that sounds eerily familiar to my own experience.  Can someone get this guy a beer or something?  Well said.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Aug 31, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Just to add my voice/writing/text to the mix...
> 
> I like the concept of the changes and can see why they are doing it.  I got the alignment aspect of the Demon/Devil devide, but never really got why some were on one side or the other.  It just seemed arbitrary and I could never tell you what side any one monster was on; and that was a problem.  If memorization is the only way to tell if a critter is a Demon or a Devil that smells of bad design (that said - I'm fully for one or two Demons and Devils that resemble the other side and can act as infiltrators but they shoudl be the exception and not the rule).
> 
> I also hope they bring the Erinyes back quickly.  As they stood (in D&D) they were redundent alongside the Succubus.  But taking them off the table for a bit gives WotC a chance to bring them back as a critter that more closely matches their mythological origins.




Alignment is getting on overhaul, so I'm guessing they need more distinction between Demons & Devils other than LE/CE.

The Designers have already said they are returning to more mythological roots (e.g. Thor was mentioned as a possible core God) so I can see why Devils are becoming more Judeo-Christian.  Lucifer & his rebel angels were kicked out of heaven for betraying God (not to mention the Sin of Pride).  Perhaps they will use the 7 Deadly Sins as more fluff for the Devils.  Layer 1 of Hell could be the Gateway, 2-8 each representing a Deadly Sin with layer 9 being Asmodeus' "capitol" of Hell. This could also see the Erinyes return in a "Wrath" form.

The designers have also stated they are creating monsters to be more encounter-specific, so they won't have 2 monsters fitting the same role.  Erinyes were looking too much like the Devil clone of a Succubus, so I can see why they only want 1 Fiend temptress.  However, I too would like to see them return as spirits of vengence & destruction.

For those who are concerned about the "Blood War", that was a 2nd Edition invention, a battle between the Tann'ari & Baatezu.  In 1st Edition it never existed. Demons lived in the Abyss & Devils lived in Hell.  Baator did not exist.  Neither were known to cross over into the others domain.  If 4th edition removes the Blood War & it makes you fell Sloth, Envy or Wrath, just keep it in your campaign.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 31, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Wow, that sounds eerily familiar to my own experience.  Can someone get this guy a beer or something?  Well said.




It's my experience as well.  I've been taking a jackhammer to Planescape for 15 years and rebuilding it into something that looks a lot like D&D 4E's demons/devils in every campaign I run.  I never cared much for Planescape, or the Blood War era outsiders.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Alot of fiends are interested in collecting mortal souls, but they do so in drastically different ways. Should we combine them all?




No - but as we've pointed out repeatedly, the succubi and the erinyes in *D&D* don't do so in drastically different ways.


----------



## BluWolf (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.)
> 
> As someone who's brought in a half-dozen players in the last two years, I will state with absolute conviction that a large number of D&Disms that many veteran players don't even notice cause new players to say "whaaaa?" When bringing folks into my Midwood campaign, it was the D&Disms, not the setting-specific stuff, that regularly stopped the game for a round of "whaaaaa?"
> 
> ...




This is extremely well put and I could not agree with more.


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2007)

Rich replied:



			
				Rich Baker's Blog said:
			
		

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wow, I'm sort of surprised -- more people were reading than I thought. It looks like I stirred up a real hornet's nest with my comments on the work I'd recently done on devils.
> 
> ...




Dropping (for now) or retconning the erinyes--no problem here.

This doesn't address the more far-reaching concern of myself and others--that demons and devils (as a whole) are being mix n' matched or merged.   To reiterate:  making a succubi a devil is the big warning flag.


----------



## Jer (Aug 31, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It's my experience as well.  I've been taking a jackhammer to Planescape for 15 years and rebuilding it into something that looks a lot like D&D 4E's demons/devils in every campaign I run.  I never cared much for Planescape, or the Blood War era outsiders.




See, I've been taking a jackhammer to the Planescape stuff since it first came out too, but I've kept the structure of the setting mostly intact.  My jackhammer was to convert all of the AD&D stuff into "Rules Cyclopedia" D&D and to excise whatever ties to existing published campaign settings were stuck in there.

But I loved the Blood War and the whole Demon/Devil war.  In fact, my longest running Planescape campaign was almost all Blood War related - with the PCs accidentally causing an escalation of the war that dragged the Good and Neutral celestials in and turned it into a massive battle between Law and Chaos.  Ah, good times, good times.

I guess my take is that I don't see the need to keep all of the setting fluff in the game with the assumption that all of the campaign worlds are interconnected - I don't see what it adds to the game.  And if there can be some new fluff provided, well if I like it and it inspires something for me to add to my game great!  And if I don't, I have the old books that I can pillage for old fluff to use if I don't have a better idea myself.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Maybe it's because I avoid the alignment discussion threads, but I really fail to see how chaos/order is really that hard to grasp. Maybe I just give people too much credit.



You should read the alignment threads. If you see it as a simple and clear issue, you either need to add your voice to calm the waters, or maybe you're confused and don't know it! 



> And although Elric is one of the more popular explorations of the dichotomy it goes far beyond just those works, so it's not just an "aging pool of Elric readers" who see chaos/order as interesting of a conflict as good/evil. Heck, Babylon 5 got five years of television out of it, and that was inspired by ancient myths of the original Babylon. So Moorcock is certainly didn't invent that conflict and isn't the only one to explore it.



OK, so the choices are:

1) Aging Elric fans
2) The fans of a beloved, but never wildly successful sci-fi show that's been off the air for a while now and is now going the direct-to-DVD route (and thus mostly speaking to existing fans)
3) Fans of Babylonian myth and legend

I'm going to stick with "obscure" on this one.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 31, 2007)

"... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. "

   And while we're at it, add a female-type outsider for daemons and demodands. I have had erinyes, succubi, naelle, and phlenar in my games, as daughters of night hags, since my 1e AD&D campaign "Into the Land of Black Ice". I'd hate to redo the Night Hag Family Tree again.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> OK, so the choices are:
> 
> 1) Aging Elric fans
> 2) The fans of a beloved, but never wildly successful sci-fi show that's been off the air for a while now and is now going the direct-to-DVD route (and thus mostly speaking to existing fans)
> ...




You missed out: players of D&D, going back as far as the 70s. That's a huge chunk of the gamer populace right there.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 31, 2007)

Some people are saying that the changes to succubi and erinyes make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't theoretically be carried forward into 4th edition.  I have to wonder if perhaps, given that the differences between succubi and erinyes in 3E are mostly cosmetic, it won't be very easy to just make succubi CE, move them into the abyss, and then use the same monster stats for the erinyes.  If they were very strongly mechanically divergent, I could see it being a problem.  But they're both just mid-level fiends who look like humans, and don't really have any major signature powers, with the possible exception of succubi being able to easily disguise themselves as humans.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> You missed out: players of D&D, going back as far as the 70s. That's a huge chunk of the gamer populace right there.



They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.




That is most obviously not true. I can think of at least one new D&D player who falls into at least one of those three categories. What's more, all the hoopla about making D&D more accessible to new players just doesn't wash with me. I'm teaching my 8-year-old nephew, my 9-year-old daughter, and my 10-year-old son to play 3.5. The only significant modification made to the core rules has been to allow them to play gestalt characters.

So far, all three of these very new players understand the game quite well.


----------



## Jer (Aug 31, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Some people are saying that the changes to succubi and erinyes make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't theoretically be carried forward into 4th edition.




Actually, I think that the stronger position is that the proposed changes to the Nine Hells given in Rich Baker's blog as well as the overall merging and mixing up of demon/devil races make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't be carried forward into 4e.  In comparison, the changes to the succubus/erinyes nomenclature is a minor one.

I don't think that's the case, but I can see the argument for it.  At a minimum you have to go out of your way to explain why the Baatezu of the Planescape setting are exactly like the Devils of the standard setting but with slightly different names and backstory.


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.




Agreed.

Yet, the stated goal of the designers so far seems to keep people currently playing the game interested enough to remain in, and keep buying stuff. They clearly want us to UPGRADE, and are insisting on how improved the new system will be. It may quite be true, but is it really worth it if I have to ditch everything I have already bought/used/worked over ?

I have not made up my mind on the issue myself and I try to remain open on the matter. But quite honestly, if no new players ever show up for the game anywhere ... it won't change my life. not at all. Not even my gaming life. So making the game attractive to new players... good, but make it attractive to me first.

On the other hand, if we old - timers, grognards, and what-have-you don't buy 4e, the volume of sales will be significantly lower than expected. Anyone remember the "revolutionary, innovative,blahblahblah" "SAGA ?" thingie that was supposed to change the face of Dragonlance ???

And I would not bet on many new players springing from nowhere just because there is a new edition of D&D. Some certainly, but enough to offset the loss ? It's an open bet.

Anyways, I stongly hope the system will be as pleasant to play and innovative as they say, and still flexible enough to let me upgrade all my old stuff, which would make this discussion moot. one can always dream.

Good gaming to you all.


----------



## Midknightsun (Aug 31, 2007)

Elric rocks!

Babylon 5 rocked!

And anyone who thinks I'm "aging" will get cracked upside the head with my walker.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Aug 31, 2007)

These changes sound fine to me. I really thought the current background for devils and demons was awful. I just wish they'd use the name daemons for the third batch of them.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.




Sorry, I thought we were discussing how obscure the Order/Chaos dichotomy is. The answer to which, within the gamer community, is "not very". Outwith that community, you're quite right - it is pretty obscure. So, point taken.

Now, if we're eliminating things that are obscure to non-D&D-gamers, then I have to nominate the following: Vancian magic; dragons that breathe anything other than fire; and the use of the d20, d12, d8, d4, and d%. The d10 I'm on the fence about - on one hand, it gets a pass because of Vampire, and because 10 is such an intuitive number to use. On the other, it's _really_ confusing due to that whole '0' = '10' thing.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 31, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> "... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. "
> 
> And while we're at it, add a female-type outsider for daemons and demodands. I have had erinyes, succubi, naelle, and phlenar in my games, as daughters of night hags, since my 1e AD&D campaign "Into the Land of Black Ice". I'd hate to redo the Night Hag Family Tree again.




What are naelle and phlenar and where can I find info on them?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Eh, I think this is all more personal taste.  I mean, the source of the Law/Chaos stuff in D&D comes from the work of folks like Moorcock and Zelazny.  It's been a long time since I read either one, but the various representatives of Chaos never seemed quite as disorganized or unstructured as one might think from the name -- the names seemed to represent two sides of an argument based on degree, not polar opposites.  I mean, Elric's people were on the side of Chaos, yet they built a huge empire and maintained it for thousands of years.  And the Chaos Lords who showed up rarely seemed like swirling masses of unstructured madness, but instead scheming demons with plots and plans that spanned millenia.
> 
> In other words, I don't think that it's been watered down over the years, I think it's always been kind of watery.  That's part of why I'm glad that they're looking at de-emphasizing alignment in the new edition - fantasy has moved on in ways that D&D hasn't, and the alignment system is trying to be too many things beyond what it was originally designed for.




I think the terms Lawful and Chaotic should be put to pasture in favor of something more descriptive. Something like Collectivist vs Individualist, Ordered vs Anarchic. Something that is more indicative of the character's chosen or portrayed philosophy in easier to understand terms (though it's true most people wouldn't grok the implications of anarchic either). The terms Lawful and Chaotic tended to be far to ambiguous.

Besides, in Elric, they stood in for Good and Evil as much as the tendency toward order or entropy. The concept was already murky and unclear.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2007)

The succubus embodies seduction and luring into carnality and evil.

The erinyes embodies vengeance, and is the punisher of the gods.

If "The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies", do a better job depicting the erinyes as furies.  

Folding the two monsters together will do nothing to help.

RC


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> That is most obviously not true.



You should re-read my post.

Zero percent of new-to-D&D players are longtime D&D players.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> To reiterate:  making a succubi a devil is the big warning flag.




*shrug*

I don't see why.

If the 4e Devils are "tempters" and 4e Demons are "monsters", the succubus _should _be a Devil, right?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Now, if we're eliminating things that are obscure to non-D&D-gamers, then I have to nominate the following: Vancian magic; dragons that breathe anything other than fire; and the use of the d20, d12, d8, d4, and d%. The d10 I'm on the fence about - on one hand, it gets a pass because of Vampire, and because 10 is such an intuitive number to use. On the other, it's _really_ confusing due to that whole '0' = '10' thing.



More than declaring that D&D is dead to me because some monsters have changed, this is what I think is a cause for ... "concern" might be too strong, but maybe "cautious interest."

Coupled with the junking of the standard green dragon looks, I suspect we may be seeing other changes made for new gamers, and hitting a reset button on a lot of things we thought we knew, more than simply streamlining and cleaning up the 3.5E rules.

I'm sure some of it I will like -- probably a lot of it, to be frank -- but others will likely shake me up when I hear about them, just like the demon/devil changes have shaken up some folks here.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You should re-read my post.




Perhaps. Or, perhaps, you should be more clear.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If "The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies", do a better job depicting the erinyes as furies.




Or, drop them altogether and create a new, actual Fury monster.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 31, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *shrug*
> 
> I don't see why.
> 
> If the 4e Devils are "tempters" and 4e Demons are "monsters", the succubus _should _be a Devil, right?




No, because I don't think that it should be that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Or, drop them altogether and create a new, actual Fury monster.




That would help avoid obscure classical references in D&D, and would be fine (unless mistaken for a "Furry"  ).

Of course, I don't mind vocabulary-building in the game.  After all, if it weren't for the urban encounter tables in the 1e DMG, I doubt that I'd know what a sycophant is today!

RC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> More than declaring that D&D is dead to me because some monsters have changed, this is what I think is a cause for ... "concern" might be too strong, but maybe "cautious interest."
> 
> ...




Oh...

I had half expected you to call that argument a strawman, and had worked out a carefully-worded set of reasons why it _wasn't_, and now I don't get to use them.

Oh well, maybe another time?   

I must admit, you have raised a number of good points I shall think on. For that, I salute you.

(Oh, and just in case - I'm not being sarcastic. Have a good day.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Perhaps. Or, perhaps, you should be more clear.




I understood what he was saying.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> No, because I don't think that it should be that way.




Oh, well then. Never mind.


----------



## avin (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 31, 2007)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> No, because I don't think that it should be that way.



Much, much too late for that I'm afraid. So, given that this would appear to be the division we'll be seeing going forward, doesn't that suggestion make more sense?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 31, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o



You would be wrong. I loved Planescape.

But it's 2007, it's Fourth Edition, maybe it's time to look forward instead of backwards.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 31, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o



Nah, Planescape regularly comes up on polls as one of the most popular campaign settings. Personally, it's my favorite setting of all time. But these changes don't bother me. It'll be great fun adjusting the setting to compensate, and I can easily imagine the shock rolling through Sigil if the Blood War was called off...

I think my point is that Planescape is more than just the Blood War, and that the upcoming 4e changes to fiends don't invalidate my love for the setting.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o




Planescape was *awesome*---it rekindled my love for D&D after a few years of disinterest. But that was over a decade ago.

I don;t see why D&D developers must be shackled to Planescape or the Great Wheel cosmology _forever_. Now is as good a time as any to try something new.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 31, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I don;t see why D&D developers must be shackled to Planescape or the Great Wheel cosmology _forever_. Now is as good a time as any to try something new.



Or maybe they could bring back and update the Five Spheres cosmology of BECMI.  Personally, I always felt it offered greater freedom for random Joe World-Builder.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o




Nope - Planescape: Torment is one of my favorite games of all time, almost specifically because of the setting.  I like Planescape in general, I like thinking about the Blood War and how to involve my players in it; heck, I even *like* the names tanar'ri and baatezu ...

... But I also really, really like Eberron, which basically gives PS the finger.

I just don't see why the Planescape arrangement of the multiverse should be more "core" than any other.


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I don;t see why D&D developers must be shackled to Planescape or the Great Wheel cosmology _forever_. Now is as good a time as any to try something new.




Speaking to the Great Wheel cosmology, for the same reason they're shackled to fireball, lightning bolt, frost brands, Tiamat, Lolth, bulettes, mind flayers, and so on...

That _is_ the D&D experience.

Sure, you can vary it up in different campaign settings and lines, but that is, and probably always will be in the minds of most people, the shared experience that sets D&D apart from other games.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Speaking to the Great Wheel cosmology, for the same reason they're shackled to fireball, lightning bolt, frost brands, Tiamat, Lolth, bulettes, mind flayers, and so on...




All of those things you mentioned existed before the Great Wheel.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

I, too, dug Planescape.

I also dug the 1980s run of Amazing and Spectacular Spider-Man comics, with the Roxxon Oil storyline, and Punisher as an actual villain, Silvermane, my favorite forgotten villain the Answer, Cloak & Dagger, Black Cat as Spidey's girlfriend, MJ returning and saying she knew Peter's secret, the Hobgoblin storyline ...

But I just don't think Spider-Man should be required to be the 1980s Spider-Man for the rest of time.

While I certainly empathize with folks really upset about this -- I find elevating Asmodeous says more about the quality of the previous evil gods the game has, rather than being a good idea on its own, even if Paizo was already doing the same thing -- I would rather see Ultimate Planescape in two years, rather than Planescape: The Reunion Special.

I'd like to see the best concepts brought back -- and brought to the fore -- and I'd like the stuff that didn't work, because every setting has them, retooled.

Yes, the best writers and DMs can take the awful stuff and polish it and make it great. And that would be fine if there were only best writers and DMs out there. But there aren't.


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> All of those things you mentioned existed before the Great Wheel.




Not by much.  The Great Wheel's been around since 1e.  Many of its planes were listed inthe 1e Monster Manual.  Did Lolth precede it?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 31, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Or maybe they could bring back and update the Five Spheres cosmology of BECMI.  Personally, I always felt it offered greater freedom for random Joe World-Builder.



I'm kind of hoping Wotc dusts off some material form _Chessboards:The Planes of Possibility_ from Primal Order


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Speaking to the Great Wheel cosmology, for the same reason they're shackled to fireball, lightning bolt, frost brands, Tiamat, Lolth, bulettes, mind flayers, and so on.




I don't see any of those as sacrosanct when it comes to a revision like this. Fold, spindle and mutilate into a batter game as needed.

(And stuff like Planetars and the Happy Hunting Grounds are nowhere *near* as iconic as the venerable Fireball.)


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 31, 2007)

oops


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I'm under impression that most people on these boards just hate Planescape... 0.o




It's very popular.  Personally, I don't hate the setting.  What I don't like is that a vocal portion of the fans keep pushing that it should be the default for D&D.  Some of them even want to shoehorn it into every single setting.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 31, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I just don't see why the Planescape arrangement of the multiverse should be more "core" than any other.



I can't speak for other Planescapers, but personally I don't feel any need for the Great Wheel to be more core than any other cosmology. It'd just be nice if changes could still allow Planescape/Great Wheel without mechanical changes (like shifting around at least one devil/demon and possibly others). Fluff is fluff and easy to edit. It's when mechanics start getting in the way of existing fluff that things can get difficult.

I guess I see an analogy being the elimination of specialist wizards. What then for the Red Wizards of Thay? Or eliminating a weak school of magic. Yeah all the spells are still there shuffled around a bit, but the Zulkir of Diviniation is left homeless. Probably not a great analogy, but I hope you see my point. It's not about trying to make one setting more core than the rest, it's hoping new mechanics don't get in the way of keeping the majority of an old setting around.

But I've had my vent. I don't know what the final succubi will look like and how devilish they will be or if I will even ever use them. Fluff and even mechanics can be changed if need be, just one is often a lot easier to alter than the other. 

For the record, since 3.x splitting FR and Eberron off into their own cosmologies, I, personally, have no problem with the Great Wheel not being core (apparently others differ, just don't lump me in with them). I'd just like to be able to use existing Planescape material without major overhauls to either it or 4e.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 31, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> What are naelle and phlenar and where can I find info on them?




   The naelle, or wasp daemon, and phlenar, or blood demodand, are the daughters of night hags by daemon and demodand fathers respectively. I devised them for my "Into the Land of Black Ice" PbP back in the '90s. At the moment, they reside solely within the confines of my waterlogged noggin.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

As others have said, I like Planescape... as its own setting, with its own feel. I do _not_ feel that any of its details or aspects need to translate over to every setting, though.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> I can't speak for other Planescapers, but personally I don't feel any need for the Great Wheel to be more core than any other cosmology. It'd just be nice if changes could still allow Planescape/Great Wheel without mechanical changes (like shifting around at least one devil/demon and possibly others). Fluff is fluff and easy to edit. It's when mechanics start getting in the way of existing fluff that things can get difficult.




Don't take this wrong--seriously --but...

Why?

Eberron requires mechanical changes from the core. Dark Sun requires/required mechanical changes from the core. Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Spelljammer... Even Forgotten Realms, arguably one of the quintessential D&D settings, requires a few mechanical changes from the core.

Why should PS be any different? And why is it a big deal if it does require such changes?

IMO, there should be exactly _one_ setting that requires _no_ mechanical changes from the core--and that's the implied core setting. Everything else should go with whatever works best for that particular setting, flavor-wise _and_ mechanics-wise.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Not by much.  The Great Wheel's been around since 1e.  Many of its planes were listed inthe 1e Monster Manual.  Did Lolth precede it?



Lolth was mentioned shortly after MM1.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> It's very popular.  Personally, I don't hate the setting.  What I don't like is that a vocal portion of the fans keep pushing that it should be the default for D&D.  Some of them even want to shoehorn it into every single setting.



I'm of the same opinion. I mean, I don't have a problem with people who enjoy Planescape, but it is the idea that Planescape=D&D that some are arguing in this thread that I don't agree with.

Sure, you can argue that elements of it have been in the game since 1st Edition, but so was THAC0 (good riddance). Also, just because it was there, doesn't mean that everyone used it or liked it.

I mean, someone above has argued that Lloth was part of the "common D&D experience", but since I never once played in the Forgotten Realms, it is not part of _my_ experience. It can't really be a "common" or "necessary" element for me.

The only things to D&D which _are_ common to all D&D players and necessary are the core rules mechanics, in particular the PC design mechanics, not fluff elements or specfifc monsters which may never show up in a particular campaign. and even of these core mechanics, old relics like Vancian spellcasting are nowhere near universally accepted, and are being chalenged.

Why should a few elements be held as "unchangable" because it would slightly disrupt Planescape, when even Vancian magic is being challenged?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought we were discussing how obscure the Order/Chaos dichotomy is. The answer to which, within the gamer community, is "not very". Outwith that community, you're quite right - it is pretty obscure. So, point taken.



I don't think that's a very relevent point, though.  I may think that my interpretation of law/chaos is clear to me, but from the various alignment threads that pop up with a startling degree of regularity, I find that not everyone has an interpretation that I can even recognize, much less find common ground with.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 31, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Perhaps. Or, perhaps, you should be more clear.



Perhaps... he was clear and you just didn't read it very carefully.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> IMO, there should be exactly _one_ setting that requires _no_ mechanical changes from the core--and that's the implied core setting. Everything else should go with whatever works best for that particular setting, flavor-wise _and_ mechanics-wise.






Seconded!


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I'm of the same opinion. I mean, I don't have a problem with people who enjoy Planescape, but it is the idea that Planescape=D&D that some are arguing in this thread that I don't agree with.




I've not been stating that Planescape=D&D, but rather that the Great Wheel is an essential part of D&D.  It predated Planescape by many years.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Sure, you can argue that elements of it have been in the game since 1st Edition, but so was THAC0 (good riddance). Also, just because it was there, doesn't mean that everyone used it or liked it.




But THAC0 is a rules element, not flavor.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I mean, someone above has argued that Lloth was part of the "common D&D experience", but since I never once played in the Forgotten Realms, it is not part of _my_ experience. It can't really be a "common" or "necessary" element for me.




Lolth was around, and popular, before the Forgotten Realms.  She even popped up on the old D&D cartoon, so was a part of popular culture outside the game, along with Tiamat and some other essential D&D elements.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The only things to D&D which _are_ common to all D&D players and necessary are the core rules mechanics, in particular the PC design mechanics, not fluff elements or specfifc monsters which may never show up in a particular campaign. and even of these core mechanics, old relics like Vancian spellcasting are nowhere near universally accepted, and are being chalenged.




You missed my point then.  The mechanics don't matter as much as the flavor.  People on these boards are playing more than 4 different versions of this game, and the flavor elements are what we have in common.  That was the shared experience I was suggesting.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> I guess I see an analogy being the elimination of specialist wizards. What then for the Red Wizards of Thay? Or eliminating a weak school of magic. Yeah all the spells are still there shuffled around a bit, but the Zulkir of Diviniation is left homeless. Probably not a great analogy, but I hope you see my point.




The reason that I don't think it's a good analogy is that I've always been somewhat of the opinion that the specialist wizard rules never worked very well.

I would have no problem, for example, with a conjurer just being a wizard who liked, used often, and studied advanced conjuration-type spells.

Similarly, the Zulkir of Divination would be just the admitted best user of divination-type spells.

Each of those characters would teach his or her apprentices spells in the appropriate vein.  In fact, I played a Conjuration-specialist wizard whose master was also a Conjuration-specialist wizard without using any wizard specialist variant rules (including the "Give up 2 other schools, get a bonus spell of your school" present in the PHB).

We did it all with spell selection and flavor.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Aug 31, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The reason that I don't think it's a good analogy is that I've always been somewhat of the opinion that the specialist wizard rules never worked very well.
> 
> I would have no problem, for example, with a conjurer just being a wizard who liked, used often, and studied advanced conjuration-type spells.
> 
> ...




Specialist Wizards should be Prestige Classes that give more than just generic bonus spells at the cost of 2 other schools.


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 31, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog-
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Weird.  This is the exact reason why I DO like it very much.

Having dragons in a game without using any of the cultural information or details about dragons would be silly.

The exact same thing goes for devils.  And angels.  

I am extremely glad that now devils are more than just "lawful monster aliens from another plane" and are now, in fact, Devils.

I very much hope that an equal amount of thought is put into demons.

You can keep baatezu in 2E, and let me forget the horribly lame concept of Blood War was ever thought up and finally have real devils and demons after mortal souls instead of fighting each other over metagame alignment issues.

"I gather mortal's souls through temptation, bargaining, and contracts."

"Well, _I_ prefer to obtain souls by ripping them from the bodies of mortals in a mindless rampage!)

"That's SO WRONG!   RAWR!!!  WAR FOR ALL ETERNITY!!"  (Meanwhile, the whole thing about them being monsters after our souls is kinda forgotten about because they are to busy fighting each other to even care about souls.)


And thank goodness (or evilness, as the case may be) that, by this description, devils at least are no longer the "promoted" souls of mortal beings.  I despised that idea.  Let's get back to having demons and devils (and liches!) _devouring_ souls, and not being recycled from them like aluminum cans.     


(Ugh, the "equally shoehorned for all settings" cosmology/mythology of 2E leaves a bad taste in my mouth)

Keep your tanar'ri out of my demons and get your Finnish Mythos out of my Cthulhu Mythos.


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 31, 2007)

Ack, double post mixup.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> The mechanics don't matter as much as the flavor.  People on these boards are playing more than 4 different versions of this game, and the flavor elements are what we have in common.  That was the shared experience I was suggesting.



I totally disagree.  None of the flavour elements discussed in this thread have any shared experience in Eberron, Dark Sun, or a pile of settings.  The mechanics, however, are shared.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> You missed my point then.  The mechanics don't matter as much as the flavor.  People on these boards are playing more than 4 different versions of this game, and the flavor elements are what we have in common.  That was the shared experience I was suggesting.




My most recent games have been in Eberron, a WLD Mashup, and a complete home-brew where reality was itself split between three planes (and there was a single city present on all three).

The Blood War really didn't enter into most of that.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I don't think that's a very relevent point, though.  I may think that my interpretation of law/chaos is clear to me, but from the various alignment threads that pop up with a startling degree of regularity, I find that not everyone has an interpretation that I can even recognize, much less find common ground with.




I was addressing obscurity, rather than interpretation.

As far as interpretation goes, I would note that the vast majority of the alignment threads I have seen deal with _personal_ alignment, rather than cosmic alignment. Order and Chaos as overarching cosmic constants seem to receive relatively little attention. Of course, that may not be because they're well understood, but rather that the focus is on how things relevant to the individual character.

I do know I broadly grasped the concepts on a first reading of the 2nd Edition PHB, and that was after 2 years of the BD&D Chaotic = Evil interpretation, and despite the lunacy of 2nd Edition's CN = insane stance.  I'm inclined to think that it's somewhat dismissive to suggest that today's new players have worse reading comprehension than I did at thirteen.


----------



## RichGreen (Aug 31, 2007)

Hi,

Not sure if someone else has mentioned this upthread, but I just got my copy of Planescape Monstrous Compendium II down to read something and noticed the author was one Rich Baker. Since this guy created the eladrin, guardinals and rilmani, I guess we should give him the benefit of the doubt..... Perhaps it's all going to turn out OK.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 31, 2007)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> Not sure if someone else has mentioned this upthread, but I just got my copy of Planescape Monstrous Compendium II down to read something and noticed the author was one Rich Baker. Since this guy created the eladrin, guardinals and rilmani, I guess we should give him the benefit of the doubt..... Perhaps it's all going to turn out OK.




And I trust the Rich Baker to follow an important writer's rule: "Kill Your Children. No matter how much you love what you have written, see it as dispensable at the alter of the greater good, and the bigger picture."


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do many of you _want_ demons and devils to be immediately recognizable for which type they are to your players?



Because they are different styles of being?


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 31, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Speaking to the Great Wheel cosmology, for the same reason they're shackled to fireball, lightning bolt, frost brands, Tiamat, Lolth, bulettes, mind flayers, and so on...
> 
> That _is_ the D&D experience.





I'll bet you fifty dollars that there are a lot more people who associate magic missiles, fireballs, and Mind Flayers with D&D then who even know what the Great Wheel _is_.

And that's among active D&D players.  

But I personally have no problem with the great wheel.  Just get rid of that ugly Blood War tumor growing on it.

And the part about merging Succubi and Erinyes and recreating Erinyes as true demonic Furies instead of "the other teams Succubus", and making Succubi into tempting devils, is an _excellent_ idea.  How many D&D players have any idea that Erinyes is the Greek name for the Furies, and _isn't_ just the name for the devil teams Succubus rip-off?  My DM sure didn't, when I told him this past weekend.*  And he introduced me to D&D.

(*In a discussion that was totally unrelated to 4E or any of this, I just told him because he was talking about Erinyes.  It's really bizarre that this whole schmeel comes up right after our discussion.) 

Let's take D&D a little bit more back to the source material that it comes from, instead of digging it deeper in the mess of self-referencing "D&Disms" that it's become.  Not so much that it wouldn't be recognizably D&D, but enough that the things that aren't necessary to make it D&D aren't kept around for nostalgia's sake.  (especially not nostalgia of a sequel edition.  If you they need to nix things, lets hope they start with the 2Eisms.)  I know of no Earthly mythology where Demon and Devils were locked in eternal war over matters of Law vs Chaos.  Let's keep that an entirely Planescape campaign setting matter and _not_ have it be the default of all D&D settings.

Similiarly, Baalzebub, mythologically the Lord of Flies, being presented as a slug-man devil instead of an insectoid being is a lame idea.


----------



## Puggins (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm hoping that this doesn't insult the Planescape fans here.  I think PS is a novel take on D&D cosmology, and cool in its own way.  But anyway....

My first experience with Demons/Devils came from the 1e Monster Manual, and the impressions I got from those entries were... terrifying, really.  Here were mystical creatures of a Biblical nature that existed in a damned reality that mirrored the Judeo-Christian belief in hell.  Just looking through the entries evoked visions of the unknowable fiends from Conan, the Fiends of Chaos from Elric, the Goat-Headed demons (supposedly) worshipped by secret and forbidden cults in the dark, dank corners of the world...  you know, basically the stuff that keeps children up at night terrified of the dark.  Merely placing one of these... things... in an adventure radically altered its complexion- you weren't messing around with greedy and foolish greenskins or oversized insects anymore.  Now you were toe-to-toe with powers beyond your reckoning, things whose knowledge stretched thousands of your lifetimes.  Basically, Lovecraft mixed liberally with western impressions of damnation.  It was both cool and forbidding.  Demons and Devils were special monsters, use sparingly at most.  Count the number of them used in published 1e modules- only Queen of the Demonweb pits used them, and even that module used them somewhat sparingly.

Now fast forward to 2e/Planescape.  I go the sense that in order to "sanitize" D&D, Demons and Devils were made far more scientific and mechanical.  Demons became Baatezu, were stripped of their mythical and forbidding origins and became pawns/players in a decidedly pedestrian Blood War, which made them feel more like a 19th century European Power than a race of unknowable horrors from an ageless realm.  Hell became Baator, and became eminently more feasible to traverse.  When a wizard traveled to the Outer Planes, he no longer entered realms beyond mortal ken- he entered something closer to Star Wars space- a reality filled with countless alien races, many with nigh-imaginable power, but all with decidedly pedestrian origins, at least compared to the Old Ones from Lovecraft, or the Biblical Hellspawn.

In short, Out went Dante's divine comedy and Lovercraft's Far realms, in came the Jules Verne and David Brin view of the multiverse.

I'm not saying it was a bad thing, mind you- TONS of people loved it, but I have to say that a little bit of wonder sorta died within me- the new Demons and Devils were Machiavellian masters of intrigue and power, but weren't the might masters of reality and time that they used to be.

Lately, I think some of the 1e flavor has started to seep back in- Malcanthet and some other newer creations (Obox-Ob, Dagon) are decidedly creepy and unholy, and Eberron's Xoriat is a nice nod to Lovecraft.  I see this new fluff as another shift towards the old mystical/unknowable, and I'm really stoked.  I want my players to be decidedly creeped out by the presence of a devil, not to think of it as some sort of extra-dimensional super soldier.

Again, no offense to the Planescape crowd- I think PS is edgy and original, but it's not my cup of tea.  This, on the other hand, sounds decidedly awesome.


----------



## avin (Aug 31, 2007)

I am up for the change. I agree with a generic MM. What sounds really really weird to me, as a Wow player, is this "must be a role" enforcement: these use swords, these don't.

I can live without the Blood War.
I can live without The Great Wheel.
Hey, I modify demons /devils myself all the time...

I'm just afraid the new rules won't allow me to customize my campaign in therms of ROLEPLAY not just filling ROLES. Hope Wotc convice me I'm wrong but it feels like Blizzard toning down classes for instances and PVP... "LF1M DPS Tarrasque" ...


----------



## Voadam (Aug 31, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Similiarly, Baalzebub, mythologically the Lord of Flies, being presented as a slug-man devil instead of an insectoid being is a lame idea.



A little more appropriate if you think of it as a maggotty larval fly form he was cursed into.


----------



## Creeping Death (Aug 31, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> For those who are concerned about the "Blood War", that was a 2nd Edition invention, a battle between the Tann'ari & Baatezu.  In 1st Edition it never existed. Demons lived in the Abyss & Devils lived in Hell.  Baator did not exist.  Neither were known to cross over into the others domain.  If 4th edition removes the Blood War & it makes you fell Sloth, Envy or Wrath, just keep it in your campaign.




Actually the seed for the blood war did exist in 1e, although it wasn't given a name and is very obscure.  Page 102 of the 1e Manual of the Planes: "The only unifying force is their hatred of good and organized peoples."  This is talking about the various demon lords.  Now that could be read as they hate LG alignments or all good and all lawful alignments.

Later, page 110 of the same book, it describes the arch-devils: "The arch-devils are a group of powerful devils (treat as lesser gods in their home plane) dedicated to the defeat of good and their own supremacy over all the known planes of existence."  Of course they will seek to destroy good, but the supremacy part would definately put them at odds with the demons.

As far as crossing into other domains, encounter tables in the 1e MotP do have you running into demons and devils outside of the Abyss and the Nine Hells.  Besides, wouldn't the arch-devils have to send out forces to invade other planes if they were ever going to have supremacy over all known planes of existence?

The name change from 1e to 2e was just to appease some fanatics (read as the Jack Chicks of the world) that were trying to ban/bar/destroy D&D.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 31, 2007)

The name change was also *cool*.

I like baatezu and tanar'ri as names for specific kinds of demons and devils.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 31, 2007)

I don't know what the great wheel is. well i guess i know what it is, but only from people on these boards. I don't know anything speicificly about it, other then its supposed to transcend the other planes. It doesen't sound that amazing really. I think it would make the other settings have a less solid feel and belittle their importance. Something i don't understand though, If demons and devils represent radically different ethical alignments (law and chaos) why do they look so similar? would it make sense if babylon 5 had both the vorlons and shadows look entirely like one or the other, but not both? For demons and devils to make sense they should look very very very different. Its should be apparent in all their buildings, in the way they dress, the way they walk, etc... If they are magic, they would even force them selves to look different from echother. 

The problem is, changeing demons and devils to look different would diverge the look of demons and devils who are almost interchangeable in our real life mythologys, they really were quite similar in apparence. and are interchangeable. I think two powerful races of order and chaos are cool, but i don't think demons and devils fit the bill.  In my game, they are interchangeable. They only good thing about demons and devils differences is it explains why their entrance onto earth from hell doesen't happen on a regular basses (in the world, not for the pcs). Demons and devils fight echother more then the lower planes. Thats easily solved with  plane magic being alot harder to cast, even by the strongest of demons, and the lesser demons or devils have a requires lesser amounts of magic.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 31, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Similiarly, Baalzebub, mythologically the Lord of Flies, being presented as a slug-man devil instead of an insectoid being is a lame idea.



I never understood that one, and I generally liked BoVD (although a bit too much of the Vile Darkness was really just unusual sexual preferences, IMO, which got in the way of the really excellent eeeeevil that was also present).


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 1, 2007)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> Actually the seed for the blood war did exist in 1e, although it wasn't given a name and is very obscure.  Page 102 of the 1e Manual of the Planes: "The only unifying force is their hatred of good and organized peoples."  This is talking about the various demon lords.  Now that could be read as they hate LG alignments or all good and all lawful alignments.
> 
> Later, page 110 of the same book, it describes the arch-devils: "The arch-devils are a group of powerful devils (treat as lesser gods in their home plane) dedicated to the defeat of good and their own supremacy over all the known planes of existence."  Of course they will seek to destroy good, but the supremacy part would definately put them at odds with the demons.
> 
> ...




Yes the name change was used to settle the controversy caused by some religious fanatics.  I grew up in that era and remember when Mazes & Monsters starring Tom Hanks was what most people thought of D&D.  Now gamers are just put into the Nerd catagory. Napolean Dynamite is probably the biggest recent pop-culture movie character to be associated with the game.  On the positive side-good movies like LOTR has made D&D more mainstream and actors like Vin Diesel being self-confessed players & supporters of the game help too.  But enough of that, about those Devils....

I see how your interpretation of MM1 can be read as a seed to the Blood War, now that the Blood war is official 2E/3E canon.  However your description of the Demon Lords and their only unifying force being the hatred of good and organized peoples isn't really specific enough to justify that they have had an eternal war with their LE counterparts.

I do agree that if the Arch-Devils were to conquer every known plane it would put them at odds with the Demons.  And every one else on every other plane they invaded.  Again no specific mention of their hatred toward the Demons.  2E is what brought the Blood War into D&D.  Yes you could bump into a Demon or Devil on another plane, especially the Prime Material where they are often summoned.  It's been a long time since I held a 1E manual, but I don't recall any mention of encounters with Devils in the Abyss or Demons in the 9 Hells.  I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just it wasn't considered a 1E Norm for Demons & Devils to hate each other as much as they hated the good powers.

This is not to say I hate the idea. I actually found the Blood War to be interesting as Planescape canon.  For the common adventurer in a Pseudo-Medieval-Fantasy world I don't think its necessary, unless the 2 forces of evil are battling over a mortal soul (in which case they could be 2 Demons battling each other; or even 2 Devils-though some alignment nazis may argue "due to thier lawful nature it could never happen" )

Overall I like the idea of Devils as fallen angels who are more corrupting in their power, and Demons as primeval forces of destruction.  It still fits the LE/CE dychotomy without having to use archaic alignment rules to force the creatures into a narrow type of behavior.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 1, 2007)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> Actually the seed for the blood war did exist in 1e, although it wasn't given a name and is very obscure.  Page 102 of the 1e Manual of the Planes: "The only unifying force is their hatred of good and organized peoples."  This is talking about the various demon lords.  Now that could be read as they hate LG alignments or all good and all lawful alignments.




This can also be read as the only unifying force that holds back Demon Lord vs. Demon Lord (due to their chaotic nature), not just the only unifying force of Demons Vs. Devils.  Having said that,  I believe it is canon that Demogorgon, Orcus & Grazz't are in a 3-way battle for best looking demon lord in the Abyss (I think Grazz't is winning, despite his 6th finger).


----------



## senna (Sep 1, 2007)

Well, i think that the problem is that Planescape is a metasetting at its heart. It was created to be the converging point for much of the things that were common between the settings. It gave its own twists to it with the factions, sigil, the chant and the way that belief shaps the planes, but it was, for the most part, a melting pot for almost everything that feels D&D, being based on what was constructed in 20 years of fluff to the game. If you take that out you, prety much, dissolve one of the main reasons of the setting.

So, i can feel why that changes, the mecanical ones and the implied ones about flavor, can cheapen the feeling of planescape for its fans.


----------



## Jer (Sep 1, 2007)

senna said:
			
		

> Well, i think that the problem is that Planescape is a metasetting at its heart. It was created to be the converging point for much of the things that were common between the settings. It gave its own twists to it with the factions, sigil, the chant and the way that belief shaps the planes, but it was, for the most part, a melting pot for almost everything that feels D&D, being based on what was constructed in 20 years of fluff to the game. If you take that out you, prety much, dissolve one of the main reasons of the setting.
> 
> So, i can feel why that changes, the mecanical ones and the implied ones about flavor, can cheapen the feeling of planescape for its fans.




See, I guess I can see that argument, but it rings false to me.  I love Planescape for the setting itself - the city of Sigil, the travel to exotic locations for adventure, the feeling that there's always something larger than you out there, the plotting of the Celestials and the Fiends -- stuff like that.

But then, I took great pains to exercise most of the "official setting melting pot" aspects from my Planescape game back in the day so that I could use the setting without it just being a metasetting.

(Similarly, my favorite incarnation of the Ravenloft campaign setting is the White Wolf one for 3e - because they had to obscure all of the connections to the other settings that the domains came from.  I love the idea that Ravenloft pulls domains from all over a multiverse - I just hate that it pulls domains from Krynn, and Toril, and Oerth.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 1, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> (Similarly, my favorite incarnation of the Ravenloft campaign setting is the White Wolf one for 3e - because they had to obscure all of the connections to the other settings that the domains came from.  I love the idea that Ravenloft pulls domains from all over a multiverse - I just hate that it pulls domains from Krynn, and Toril, and Oerth.)




Well, it's not RP/gaming material, but as of the new Ravenloft fiction line, the Mists pull people and domains (or at least domain concepts) from different periods in actual Earth history.    Just an FYI.

[/hijack]


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, it's not RP/gaming material, but as of the new Ravenloft fiction line, the Mists pull people and domains (or at least domain concepts) from different periods in actual Earth history.    Just an FYI.
> 
> [/hijack]



 ETA, please?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 1, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ETA, please?




_Black Crusade_, the first novel of the new series, is out next March.


----------



## Garnfellow (Sep 1, 2007)

Wouldn't it have been far, far, easier to just give the succubus an additional alternate form -- their true form, perhaps -- that is some chaotic mass of horrible fleshy protoplasm or some such nastiness.

Bam! Now she fits the demonic model. Maybe that "pretty girl with bat wings" false form is just a demonic "FU" to the devils?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 1, 2007)

Random aside: In 6th-grade social studies class, I did a presentation on demons and devils in history and religion. (About as deep a presentation as you'd expect from a 6th-grader. )

Part of the presentation was a posterboard with various bits of info on it. As an artistic touch, I xeroxed pictures of various demons from various books and pasted them around the border of the poster. One my sources for pictures (but not information ) was the 1E _Monster Manual_.

The succubus picture drew an interesting frown from the teacher...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 1, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it have been far, far, easier to just give the succubus an additional alternate form -- their true form, perhaps -- that is some chaotic mass of horrible fleshy protoplasm or some such nastiness.



Nah, that wouldn't work. You'd always be thinking about her horrible protoplasmic true form and wouldn't be able to do her.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 1, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Nah, that wouldn't work. You'd always be thinking about her horrible protoplasmic true form and wouldn't be able to do her.




So, she'd be Paris Hilton, then?


----------



## Pale (Sep 1, 2007)

All in all, I was _much_ more upset when they screwed over *12* of my elemental princes by removing para- and quasi-elemental planes.

What's good for the inner is good for the outer!


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 1, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The succubus picture drew an interesting frown from the teacher...




suddenly seduction gets sexy and she is upset? hahah thats awesome. Is their really a difference between demons and devils outside of d&d?

*edit*

so does anyone have a picture of the 1e succubus for um... research?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 1, 2007)

It seems that many people that have been playing D&D since 1e (like me) are making the generalization that all these changes will upset the old crowd (to which I belong.) 

I just want to say...IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR THESE CHANGES!

Everytime I've tried to get interested in D&D again, I find myself quickly turned off by the 30 yaers worth of mish-mash that is just added to over and over again. I don't like the Great Wheel, or Planescape, or lots of other things aout D&D cosmology. And it's actually pretty hard to ignore. Which is probably why I like low-levels games...most of the wacky stuff can be ignored at that level. There it's like...points of light in world of darkness. 

And that's where I see 4e going...a return to a more medieval world, with monsters that aren't in plain sight. And with devils plotting, demons maddening, and angels protecting.

So, to WotC, THANK YOU for cleaning out the closet...make sure you get all the way to the back shelves, and don't forget to sweep from under the rug.

(And to those that like Planescape...you still have it...and for your sake I do hope WotC eventually revitalizes the setting. But, that concept is way too far removed from the common vision of medieval fantasy to be anywhere near the core rulebooks.)


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 1, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Similiarly, Baalzebub, mythologically the Lord of Flies, being presented as a slug-man devil instead of an insectoid being is a lame idea.




Just because Gygax randomly picked names from mythology, it doesn't necessarily follow that we can't in some instances opt to go beyond those sources (and frankly the beings he took those names for often had very little in common with the source material).

But back to Baalzebul and the 2e and 3e version of him, his original form when he fell from Mount Celestia and ended up taking control of Maladomini from it's previous Lord of the 7th, Beherit, was indeed that of a powerful man with insectoid features, just like his picture in 1e. He lost that form as a result of subsequent struggles against, and punishment at the hands of Asmodeus.

And if you present him not as a slug, but more of a maggot, it's both disturbing and fitting at the same time.


----------



## Pale (Sep 1, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> suddenly seduction gets sexy and she is upset? hahah thats awesome. Is their really a difference between demons and devils outside of d&d?




Etymologically speaking, yes, but that's about it.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 1, 2007)

Puggins said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that this doesn't insult the Planescape fans here.




Not at all. And I'm going with the same disclaimer as you had in your post: this isn't intended to offend, so roll with me here.



> Lately, I think some of the 1e flavor has started to seep back in- Malcanthet and some other newer creations (Obox-Ob, Dagon) are decidedly creepy and unholy, and Eberron's Xoriat is a nice nod to Lovecraft.  I see this new fluff as another shift towards the old mystical/unknowable, and I'm really stoked.  I want my players to be decidedly creeped out by the presence of a devil, not to think of it as some sort of extra-dimensional super soldier.




And it's wierd, it's honestly wierd, because that's precisely the opposite of what I walk away from the same material with. I don't get the feel from the 1e presentation of those beings that they're unholy, soul devouring terrors, "masters of reality and time". I get from the earliest material that they're the monsters at the end of the planar dungeon. Now it's very possible to go beyond the slim to frankly nonexistant details given to many of them in the 1e MM and MM2, and a lot of DMs did that and spun some really good material from it, but I don't find any of that potential flavor and atmosphere present in the actual written material.

Fast forward to the 2e material on the same subject, and it's there that I finally see some of the fiends portrayed as truly dark, malevolent beings that represent bedrock elements of reality and mortal fears and failures taken physical form. I find towers constructed of billions of screaming mortal souls, grafted together like so many agonized living bricks. I find entities that are virtual living paradoxes, epitomizing selfishness while at the same time wholly prostrating themselves to Evil like a religious concept. They were no longer just monsters, but much worse and the material explored the philosophical elements of just what they were, and how they were different from one another. 

The further into 2e's planar material I look, the material gets progressively darker, to a point that in some cases that we haven't seen an equal in 3.x until the past few years (FC:I, FC:II, etc). Some of the early 2e material is still tinged by TSR management's misguided PR attempts, but it ends up darker by far than anything that came before it.

And if you're looking for elements of lovecraftian terror, I don't see it in the early 1e material so much as a see some very fine examples of it in mid/late 2e, such as the description of the "Bells of Othrys" in the Planes of Conflict box set, or whole chapters of Guide to the Ethereal Plane (penned by Mr Bruce Far Realms Cordell).

Now this is only my take on that material, but I'm inclined to believe that the 1e material was more a blank slate, undeveloped enough that you could put whatever thematic spin on it you might have wanted with a creative DM and cooperative players, but that we never really saw those thematic elements actually put into the published planar material to any great extent till the 2e period, with a resurgence of that in late 3.x.


----------



## tubbs (Sep 1, 2007)

My guess: they're dumping the erinyes, because somebody finally told them the word is plural.

My question: why not go whole hog? It's not just that erinyes and succubi are redundant; demons and devils are.

If alignment plays less of a role (and, actually, it should play none), then what's the distinction for?  The distinction between the two is a phoniness ginned up to support a nonsensical cosmology. Why not 'fiends'? There are bad guys from another dimension. Many are humanoid; many are gross. So what?

This would resolve the long-standing problem of nomenclature, too: there's no reason for Baphomet to be a demon and Belial a devil. 

The odd thing here is that the 4E folks are _perpetuating _ redundancies, inconsistencies, and arbitrariness. The elision of erinyes is symbolic. It represents the work they ought to be doing, rather than inventing ptolemaic epicycles, as with the ice devils, to explain contradictions in a made-up system.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 1, 2007)

this new version reminds me a tad of sandman. Lucifer was sent to hell. And along with him, their are many fallen angles. But not only that. Really evil creatures who were evil before the fall are dawn to this realm as sort of a sanctuary for evil. So that would be the distinction in my view.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 1, 2007)

Well, even without alignment  (I'm playing fiend's advocate here, because I'm not thrilled with the demon/devil trades at this point), its fairly easy to see devils as the more traditional horned, humanoid, handsome/attractive winged "fallen angels," and demons as the strange, otherworldly, Cthulhu-esqe creatures of nightmare.  

I'm just saying . . .


----------



## Geoffrey (Sep 1, 2007)

It is a historical fact that the Great Wheel cosmology is NOT essential to D&D. The Great Wheel cosmology was first published in _The Dragon_ #8 in July 1977. In other words, D&D had already been published for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before Gary Gygax's Great Wheel article was published. Further, in the last sentences of said article Gary wrote: "I think it best to do nothing more than offer the idea for your careful consideration and thorough experimentation. This writer has used only parts of the system in a limited fashion. It should be tried and tested before adoption."

A year later in 1978 the Great Wheel cosmology showed up in the AD&D Players Handbook. It had a mere two pages as the fourth appendix out of five, alongside other clearly optional AD&D concepts such as psionics and bards.

In short, neither in original D&D nor in 1st edition AD&D was the Great Wheel cosmology an essential of D&D. It was merely an option. I am unfamiliar with 2nd edition AD&D, so I can't speak to what was done there with the Great Wheel.

As an illustration, one of THE quintessential D&D campaign worlds is Judges Guild's Wilderlands. Here is a quote from pp. 92-93 of Necromancer's _Player's Guide to the Wilderlands_: "[T]he Wilderlands was created before the  First Edition _Player's Handbook_ and thus was not designed with that particular cosmology. Instead, unlike the planes of other official fantasy settings, which seem so well-traveled, the planes in the Wilderlands should be mysterious and new. They should defy a firm categorization, since they are fluid and undefined and each overlaps the other to a great degree. The early fantasy works of H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and Michael Moorcock definitely influenced the cosmology of the Wilderlands, and the planes reflect it."

What in the Great Wheel cosmology are 17 outer planes are in the Wilderlands' cosmology a mere three: the Netherworld (realm of evil), the Celestial Realm (realm of good), and Arborea (realm of neutrality). Are the Wilderlands missing an essential element of D&D? Obviously not.

In closing, if anyone likes the Great Wheel, fine. But don't make the mistake of asserting that it is essential to D&D.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 1, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Not at all. And I'm going with the same disclaimer as you had in your post: this isn't intended to offend, so roll with me here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For me, the Devils and Demons lost their "evil mojo" in 2nd ed. dur to too much information. When it comes to other planes & otherworldly terrors, for me, less is more, just as HPL and REH did it. Knowing about their politics and wars them them pedestrian.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 1, 2007)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> It is a historical fact that the Great Wheel cosmology is NOT essential to D&D. The Great Wheel cosmology was first published in _The Dragon_ #8 in July 1977. In other words, D&D had already been published for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before Gary Gygax's Great Wheel article was published. Further, in the last sentences of said article Gary wrote: "I think it best to do nothing more than offer the idea for your careful consideration and thorough experimentation. This writer has used only parts of the system in a limited fashion. It should be tried and tested before adoption."
> 
> A year later in 1978 the Great Wheel cosmology showed up in the AD&D Players Handbook. It had a mere two pages as the fourth appendix out of five, alongside other clearly optional AD&D concepts such as psionics and bards.
> 
> ...





There have been several aspects of D&D that aren't "essential," but are still very much a traditional aspect.  If 4th edition had scrapped the entire idea of the old planes and went with new outer planes, or planes in general, with new inhabitants, that would be a whole other issue.  What is odd is that they are taking some aspects of the Great Wheel and using them, and drastically altering other aspects.  

We don't know how much any of these changes will effect the cosmology, but it does seem like the Abyss and the Nine Hells are still in, and the Nine Hells are still the home of devils.  So the point is that some elements are making it in, but not others.  Its a strange half measure.

Also, the Manual of the Planes came out during 1st edition.  This 1st edition rulebook very much cemented the Great Wheel as the "home" of the D&D settings.  If you really want to get technical, calling a fighter a fighter and not a "Fighting Man" would then not be intrinsic to D&D either.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 1, 2007)

Puggins said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that this doesn't insult the Planescape fans here.  I think PS is a novel take on D&D cosmology, and cool in its own way.  But anyway....




I'm a Planescape fan but I'm not insulted. I can recall feeling the same way you describe when reading about demons and devils in the 1E MM. Because the information was sparse there was a lot of room left for mystery and wonder. The more something is explained the less mystery remains and the known becomes relatively mundane in comparison. This is something that Lovecraft exploited expertly in a lot of his writing.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Sep 1, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> At a minimum you have to go out of your way to explain why the Baatezu of the Planescape setting are exactly like the Devils of the standard setting but with slightly different names and backstory.



You have to do that with *any* setting which doesn't use the Great Wheel cosmology, though, and technically speaking *both* of the currently published official settings - the Forgotten Realms and Eberron - fall into that category. Of course, that the Forgotten Realms have been separated from the Great Wheel is not an uncontroversial decision, but the fact remains.

Likewise, Dark Sun doesn't take place in the default cosmology - and back when they had to pretend that it *did* for the sake of consistency, they had to make up awkward explanations for why it didn't fit with Spelljammer or Planescape.

Likewise, Dragonlance was never written to make use of the Great Wheel, and it was poorly shoehorned in there.

Likewise, Ravenloft has no meaningful connection to the Great Wheel, and attempts to define it within that context (including the imprisonment of Vecna within it) always detracted from its uniqueness.

I'm a huge fan of Planescape, but for me its coolness never depended upon its use as a "metasetting" encompassing all the published _D&D_ worlds. Its coolness was dependent upon its own idiosyncratic elements - everything that was made up for the setting itself.

I like the sound of these changes from the point of view of making Fourth Edition a more accessible, flexible game. We can always rewrite the flavour for a Planescape setting in the future, just as we have to do it now for Eberron or another non-Great Wheel setting.


----------



## RichGreen (Sep 1, 2007)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> It is a historical fact that the Great Wheel cosmology is NOT essential to D&D. The Great Wheel cosmology was first published in _The Dragon_ #8 in July 1977. In other words, D&D had already been published for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before Gary Gygax's Great Wheel article was published. Further, in the last sentences of said article Gary wrote: "I think it best to do nothing more than offer the idea for your careful consideration and thorough experimentation. This writer has used only parts of the system in a limited fashion. It should be tried and tested before adoption."




Thanks for this reference -- just checked it out on my Dragon CDs. The article doesn't even name all the Outer Planes!

Cheers


Richard


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 1, 2007)

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> Also, the Manual of the Planes came out during 1st edition.  This 1st edition rulebook very much cemented the Great Wheel as the "home" of the D&D settings.  If you really want to get technical, calling a fighter a fighter and not a "Fighting Man" would then not be intrinsic to D&D either.





The original MotP came out in 1987... nearly 10 years after the AD&D PHB (1978)! So please don't try to imply that this book is closely tied to the core of 1E D&D.


----------



## Gez (Sep 1, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> Etymologically speaking, yes, but that's about it.




Devil comes from an old Indo-European root for "god" (compare "divine", "diva", "deva", etc.); demon comes from the Greek word for "spirit". Which may be why "_the_ Devil" is more often used than "_the_ Demon" to refer to Satan, and why "demons" is more often used than "devils" to refer to minor denizens of Hell. "Devil" implies a greater power than "demon."


----------



## S'mon (Sep 1, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.




I'd rather that this kind of cosmology fluff was kept setting-specific, not in the rules manuals (including MM).  Monster descrptions in the MM should be kept generic IMO, without reference to specific cosmology, other than that other planes exist and demons come from somewhere nasty.


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2007)

Blair Goatsblood said:
			
		

> For me, the Devils and Demons lost their "evil mojo" in 2nd ed. dur to too much information. When it comes to other planes & otherworldly terrors, for me, less is more, just as HPL and REH did it. Knowing about their politics and wars them them pedestrian.




"Less is more" is absolutely a good thing _from the players' point of view_. However, for a DM to properly use a given element, he really needs information about it. You cannot pit your PCs against Demogorgon in a fight they have a chance to win unless you have stats for Demogorgon. Does having stats make Demogorgon less dangerous, Evil and mysterious? To the DM, yes, but to the players it should not.

So, in detailing the Lower Planes and the arch-fiends for use, of course 2nd Edition had to reduce the mystery, and hence the terror... from the point of view of the DMs who were going to use that material and therefore needed that information. For the players, who shouldn't be accessing that material, it shouldn't make any difference.

(Of course, there is the problem that many players look into things they really shouldn't, and many players are also DMs, and so will read that material. I don't have an answer to that point.)

To draw an analogy, consider the scariest 'creeping horror' film you know. From the point of view of the audience, it's scary because the information isn't present. From the point of view of the director, though, there isn't that same fear - he knows exactly what's going on (and necessarily must, to do his job). For this analogy, the players are the audience; the DM is the director.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 1, 2007)

The thing with changes is I'm more in favour of changes that Add, rather than changes that Subtract.  So any change that Adds to something that was there is better than ones that takes away from anything that was there.


----------



## Just Another User (Sep 1, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it's fluff that will almost certainly also apply to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, any Planescape reissue they do, and any new published setting. It also makes all that wonderful fluff in the two Fiendish Codices we all just bought completely useless.
> 
> No, I don't like this change.




And that is why they did it, probably, so people had to buy the new books rather than keep using old edition materials (3.x, 2nd or even OD&D) (unless they want to do a lot of works on it, of course) .
I'm going out on a limb and saying that they proobably will be doing the same to many of the other monsters, at least the non-generic ones (aberrations, drows, other kind of outsiders, some undead, etc, etc.)


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Random aside: In 6th-grade social studies class, I did a presentation on demons and devils in history and religion. (About as deep a presentation as you'd expect from a 6th-grader. )
> 
> Part of the presentation was a posterboard with various bits of info on it. As an artistic touch, I xeroxed pictures of various demons from various books and pasted them around the border of the poster. One my sources for pictures (but not information ) was the 1E _Monster Manual_.
> 
> The succubus picture drew an interesting frown from the teacher...



 Got you beat, dude!

The Great Wheel and the Blood War got me an A+ in Philosophy 201 in college!

"YAY!" for the Blood War!


----------



## Just Another User (Sep 1, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Yeah, in function but not in form. There were no real reason why most fiends looked how they looked, and unless you knew the specific type of fiend you couldn't say, on seeing one, if it was a tanar'ri, yugoloth, baatezu, or other miscellaneous fiend family.
> 
> In short, if you take a, say, Paelirion, should that be a devil or a demon? Or maybe a daemon? A particularly ugly Slaad?




I fail to see why this should be better.
There is some reason why you/your character should be inherently able to take apart a demon from a devil at first sight (without the right skills)?


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 1, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> The original MotP came out in 1987... nearly 10 years after the AD&D PHB (1978)! So please don't try to imply that this book is closely tied to the core of 1E D&D.





Yeah, I guess I'm not a real player either, since I didn't start playing until 1984 . . .


----------



## Traycor (Sep 1, 2007)

I very much like this change. My players were always very much confused with the differences between Devils and Demons. No matter how I explained it, they still considered the two as basically the same thing.

Now it will be easy to make a distinction.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 1, 2007)

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess I'm not a real player either, since I didn't start playing until 1984 . . .




Since you are capable of typing, clearly you are _real_. And since you come to EN World, I can safely assume you _play_ the game.

Thus it is my conclusion that you are indeed a "_real player_."

-----Back on Topic-----

You asserted that because TSR released the Manual of the Planes, there is an implied 'cementing' of this milieu to the core game (PHB/DMG/MM). This is simply not true.

The Great Wheel was an option given in an appendix; voluntary campaign fluff.

Over the years TSR released several supplements/campaign settings with wildly different cosmological assumptions, including Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore, Lankhmar, and Mystara... all this before they got around to making MotP. Even after that, TSR continued to release more CSs that eschewed the Great Wheel (Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms).

So basically, the TSR product line reveals that D&D does not have an 'official' cosmology. D&D assumes each DM will choose or make a cosmology that suits them, and the Great Wheel is merely the _oldest_ one they've offered. It has no intrinsic ties to _actually playing_ the game, and is thus disposable.

Since WotC is now in charge, they can do as they please, and this new demon/devil change reflects that. I understand the grief of Planescapers, but it appears that is a cross WotC is willing to bear.

I've never used the Wheel myself, therefore it is not sarosanct. This announced restructuring seems reasonable, therefore I applaud it.


----------



## tubbs (Sep 2, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Devil comes from an old Indo-European root for "god" (compare "divine", "diva", "deva", etc.); demon comes from the Greek word for "spirit". Which may be why "_the_ Devil" is more often used than "_the_ Demon" to refer to Satan, and why "demons" is more often used than "devils" to refer to minor denizens of Hell. "Devil" implies a greater power than "demon."




Not so much.

They both come from old Indo-European, and they both come from Greek. In Greek, 'diabolus' meant "accuser" or "slanderer", and this sense fit nicely with the judeo-christian notion of Satan. That's how you get "the Devil". He slandered god, and there was only one of him.

Per the OED, however, there doesn't seem to be any relationship between 'devil' and any of the words you reference, e.g. 'deva', from Sanskrit, from the postulated root *div, "to shine".

'Diabolus' comes from 'dia', meaning 'through' (as in  dia-gram) and 'bellein', "to cast". The 'v' seems to have come in with the borrowing of the word by Latin.

You're right that 'demon' meant a spirit inferior to gods in Greek.

The rest of it's folk etymology, however.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 2, 2007)

Let me rephrase this, because it was never my intention to say that something does or does not have to be part of the game for the game to be D&D.  That's not actually my point.  My point is that the Great Wheel, as it stands, has a certain history, and has a certain way that it works, and that has been in place since 1987, although aspects of it were brought in much earlier.

My point is that I think it runs contrary to the spirit of something established in the game to alter it fundamentally.  The Great Wheel is based on the four axis of alignment, but if you mess with that, change its history, and still use the same name, you do start to undermine some of this history of the game.  

To clarify, if 4th edition didn't want to have a set cosmology, or wanted to create a whole new cosmology or just refer to "the lower planes" or "the upper planes" it would be much different than using the same names for various groups on the planes and the planes themselves, and then fundamentally change them.

As to the Forgotten Realms having a separate cosmology, well, taht's a recent development.  While I'm sure Ed Greenwood didn't use the Great Wheel in the stories he was writing before it was a published setting, it pretty clear right from the start that it was used as soon as it was a D&D setting, and I even remember Ed's "Down to Earth Divinity" article where he advoctes the need for places like Acheron so that gods like Bane would have a home without getting involved in Hell's politics.

So I guess I would mind that much if the "generic" material in 4th edition just referred to demons/devil/yugoloths as fiends from the lower planes, and left it to the individual campaign settings to set up the divisions and history between them  (in fact, such an approach would be ideal for a setting like Krynn where there is indeed no Blood War and little point to distinguishing between devils and demons).

Also, I strongly suspect that "eladrin" is going to now mean what aasimar meant before, which seems to imply that there may be no "chaotic good" celestial organization in 4th edition, with most of the celestials falling under the purview of angels.  Again, if they had changed the aasimar's name without using an established name, I think it would work better for the "generic" mean that 4th edition should be setting up with its implied setting.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 2, 2007)

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> So I guess I would mind that much if the "generic" material in 4th edition just referred to demons/devil/yugoloths as fiends from the lower planes, and left it to the individual campaign settings to set up the divisions and history between them  (in fact, such an approach would be ideal for a setting like Krynn where there is indeed no Blood War and little point to distinguishing between devils and demons).



The best thing about such a generic setting: It opens up the way for a "Great Wheel Campaign Book"... so... is this a step for the return of the Great Wheel with Sigil (aka Planescape)? Or for Greyhawk?

Both would be awesome!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## EATherrian (Sep 2, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you prefer the old fluff, is there a problem I'm not seeing in keeping it for your own campaign?  I don't see any negative consequences for doing so, but I may be missing something.




Well, they did just invalidate two of their best books, the Fiendish Codices.  As someone who enjoys the history of D&D itself, this just strikes me as odd.  Looks like poor Malcanthet and Castle Maure are going to have their stories rocked.


----------



## EATherrian (Sep 2, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If you can say that, I can only conclude that you have never read a single line of fluff on evil outsiders from either the Planescape setting, or the 3.x planar books (including the two Fiendish Codices).




Or actually read Moorcock, where most of the alignment divisions were taken from.  In a magical world where Law and Chaos are real sources of power, the alignments actually take on a meaning.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 2, 2007)

double post


----------



## Klaus (Sep 2, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Over the years TSR released several supplements/campaign settings with wildly different cosmological assumptions, including Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore, Lankhmar, and Mystara... all this before they got around to making MotP.



 I have the 1e Legends & Lore, and it lists the specific Great Wheel planes where the deities reside.


----------



## Aloïsius (Sep 2, 2007)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> Or actually read Moorcock, where most of the alignment divisions were taken from.  In a magical world where Law and Chaos are real sources of power, the alignments actually take on a meaning.




And I did not like Moorcock books... Partly because of the Law-Chaos thing.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

I didn't read all of the thread, but these are my thoughts.

I adore the idea of Devils as fallen angels, and used a similar sort of aproach in the last game I ran with fiends for all fiends. I believe evil is a choice, and therefore beings that are inherently evil from their beginings rub me the wrong way. I wish they'd do the same with Demons (or just merge the two) but this seems unlikely.

  As for the history changes...I wouldnt be likely to use any of the versions of the history that are printed anyway so it doesnt much matter to me.

  The D&D "Erinyes" were already pretty unlike the mythical ones, since in the myths there were only three and they were not "fiends" of any kind. Whereas, the D&D Succubus fits its origins pretty nicely...so just having the Succubus seems fine to me.


I also agree that the distinction between Devils and Demons has always been a bit hazy/silly (especially for those of us who dont give a fig about "law" and "chaos"), and while I would probably have solved that by simply removing any distinction at all, actually making them distinct works too.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> Well, they did just invalidate two of their best books, the Fiendish Codices.  As someone who enjoys the history of D&D itself, this just strikes me as odd.  Looks like poor Malcanthet and Castle Maure are going to have their stories rocked.



 But if you played any published setting, then they would have been invalidated _anyway_. Neither FR nor Eberron nor any third-party setting uses the Great Wheel.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I fail to see why this should be better.
> There is some reason why you/your character should be inherently able to take apart a demon from a devil at first sight (without the right skills)?



 Because they should be more than just generic EVIL PLANAR GUYS who happen to be in a war against each other. Yeah, yeah, there's three metric tons of earlier edition splats which go into history, culture, organisation, personalities and shoe size detailing just how demons and devils are different. But then your character shouldn't know that stuff either, right?

I can see that if you were confronted by some misshapen, multilimbed monstrosity with claws and fangs and drooling spittle from its gigantic maw, you might not know which particular demon it was. But the first instinctive thought for most people on seeing something like that would be "it's a demon" and that's something which is quite reasonable. There's no reason, whether from an ingame or out-of-game PoV, to start playing games like "OTOH, it could be a devil...".

The greatest point of difference, really, between demons and devils as they stand right now is that one side is CE and the other LE. Since it appears that they're going to be deemphasising the role of alignment, that no longer becomes sufficient. So there's a need to find other ways to make them mechanically and thematically distinct from each other.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Because they should be more than just generic EVIL PLANAR GUYS who happen to be in a war against each other. Yeah, yeah, there's three metric tons of earlier edition splats which go into history, culture, organisation, personalities and shoe size detailing just how demons and devils are different. But then your character shouldn't know that stuff either, right?
> 
> I can see that if you were confronted by some misshapen, multilimbed monstrosity with claws and fangs and drooling spittle from its gigantic maw, you might not know which particular demon it was. But the first instinctive thought for most people on seeing something like that would be "it's a demon" and that's something which is quite reasonable. There's no reason, whether from an ingame or out-of-game PoV, to start playing games like "OTOH, it could be a devil...".
> 
> The greatest point of difference, really, between demons and devils as they stand right now is that one side is CE and the other LE. Since it appears that they're going to be deemphasising the role of alignment, that no longer becomes sufficient. So there's a need to find other ways to make them mechanically and thematically distinct from each other.



I think it would actually be refreshing if these mechanical and thematic differences allowed them to abandon the alignment distinction altogether, allowing for NE and CE devils, and NE and LE demons.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think it would actually be refreshing if these mechanical and thematic differences allowed them to abandon the alignment distinction altogether, allowing for NE and CE devils, and NE and LE demons.






  I agree. I, in game, have generally used "Demon", "Devil" and "Fiend" all totally interchangebly.

  Of course I also studiously ignore "Law" and "Chaos".


----------



## Dacileva (Sep 2, 2007)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> Well, they did just invalidate two of their best books, the Fiendish Codices.  As someone who enjoys the history of D&D itself, this just strikes me as odd.  Looks like poor Malcanthet and Castle Maure are going to have their stories rocked.



If you plan to use the Great Wheel, the books are fine.

If you don't, they weren't very useful anyway (such as for an FR or Eberron game).


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 2, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I have the 1e Legends & Lore, and it lists the specific Great Wheel planes where the deities reside.




Which I will note uses different planes than Planescape uses (in some places).  In fact, I believe the visual prior to the MotP was a great "rectangle."  I admit, it didn't qualify as "wildly different."

The planes have evolved and changed through the years.  Several planes were added over the year (Concordant Opposition, Plane of Shadow).  Planes have appeared and disappeared again (the para-elemental & quasi-elemental planes).

The planes haven't exactly been stable as "canon."


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 2, 2007)

While I'm alright with the structure of the planes flexible, what I don't like is completely disregarding past material.  And I feel that they may be disregarding Fiendish Codex I, Fiendish Codex II and all the Demonomicon articles in Dragon, which were really really good.  

The new changes they're proposing right now, is just schlock in comparison to all that material...

Sure I don't mind the Devil origin story as it isn't much different from FCII and the Ice Devil/Gelugon thing as it's adding something.  But I despise the whole Succubus matter as it currently is.

And as one of the hornets from the nest, I'm going to keep on stinging...

Whoever's writing writing stuff on the "Exemplar" outsiders should pay close attention to the stuff written in those books instead.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Because they should be more than just generic EVIL PLANAR GUYS who happen to be in a war against each other. Yeah, yeah, there's three metric tons of earlier edition splats which go into history, culture, organisation, personalities and shoe size detailing just how demons and devils are different. But then your character shouldn't know that stuff either, right?
> 
> I can see that if you were confronted by some misshapen, multilimbed monstrosity with claws and fangs and drooling spittle from its gigantic maw, you might not know which particular demon it was. But the first instinctive thought for most people on seeing something like that would be "it's a demon" and that's something which is quite reasonable. There's no reason, whether from an ingame or out-of-game PoV, to start playing games like "OTOH, it could be a devil...".
> 
> The greatest point of difference, really, between demons and devils as they stand right now is that one side is CE and the other LE. Since it appears that they're going to be deemphasising the role of alignment, that no longer becomes sufficient. So there's a need to find other ways to make them mechanically and thematically distinct from each other.




They're all evil. That's all that really matters.  How they are evil is really more for flavor.  Does the Demon/Devil just want to saly everything in sight, or does it want to manipulate you to slay everything in sight?  Which is the greater evil?  The force of destruction or the force of corruption? 

IMO there should only be 3 alignments: Good, Neutral & Evil.  How you play each alignment shouldn't have a strict bearing in terms of Law/Chaos.  I think most of us have seen the Paladin that has been shoehorned into a boring character because of the way his alignment was played.  A good Paladin should be able to bend the rules (law) for the greater good.  By the 9 alignment rule, that would make him NG, a clear violation of his LG restriction.  Of course anyone who has played for a long time & has some commen sense will use alignment as a tool, not a restriction, but in my experiences, those people are few & far between.

Maybe the 4E rules will change that.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> They're all evil. That's all that really matters.  How they are evil is really more for flavor.  Does the Demon/Devil just want to saly everything in sight, or does it want to manipulate you to slay everything in sight?  Which is the greater evil?  The force of destruction or the force of corruption?



 So what you're saying is that the distinction between demon and devil is unimportant, and they should just have one set of bad guys, let's call them "fiends" or something. Which is also fine by me.


----------



## Elsenrail (Sep 2, 2007)

I don't really think the whole "devils" is a good idea. The term "devil" describes a single persona, not a race. The devil is the chief od demons in christian religion, the primordial manifestation of evil (and the other religions also have a single entity as the badass of the universe). Frankly, I dislike the whole alignments thing. To the Hells with it!


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Because they should be more than just generic EVIL PLANAR GUYS who happen to be in a war against each other. Yeah, yeah, there's three metric tons of earlier edition splats which go into history, culture, organisation, personalities and shoe size detailing just how demons and devils are different. But then your character shouldn't know that stuff either, right?




The thing is, though, that most players aren't going to care that Devils are fallen angels, while Demons are alien monstrosities, any more than they currently care about them being manifestations of primordial Law and Evil (or Chaos and Evil). To most players, Evil is Evil is Evil, and all they're interested in is how best to kill it.

Now, previously, they would have the Cleric roll Knowledge(the planes), and then break out either the silver and electricity spells, or the cold iron and sonic spells. (Or, actually, they break out the holy weapons and the sonic spells, since those work equally well in both cases.) In the new edition, all they need to do is determine whether it's humanoid or not, and then do the same. Either way, the fight goes down in much the same way.

No, in order to make the encounters feel different, you need something more. Perhaps Devils act in a unified manner (and have powers and abilities to aid them in working together), while Demons are a howling mob (but have the summoning ability). Or something.

But once you have something that sets them apart other than "is humanoid and uses weapons" or "is not humanoid and doesn't use weapons" then you don't need that as a distinction. And that's good too - it means that the PCs who bothered investing in that skill actually get to use it in a meaningful manner.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> The thing is, though, that most players aren't going to care that Devils are fallen angels, while Demons are alien monstrosities, any more than they currently care about them being manifestations of primordial Law and Evil (or Chaos and Evil). To most players, Evil is Evil is Evil, and all they're interested in is how best to kill it.




If that's the endpoint of what they care about, then they also won't care about the current setup. So complaints about breaking canon become irrelevant.



> Now, previously, they would have the Cleric roll Knowledge(the planes), and then break out either the silver and electricity spells, or the cold iron and sonic spells. (Or, actually, they break out the holy weapons and the sonic spells, since those work equally well in both cases.) In the new edition, all they need to do is determine whether it's humanoid or not, and then do the same. Either way, the fight goes down in much the same way.




From the game-mechanical viewpoint, every monster is simply a collection of hit points, attacks and abilities to be defeated by the appropriate use of skills and expenditure of resources. That applies whether you're talking about demons, devils, dragons, or Joe Orc the 1st level warrior. Your point is...?



> No, in order to make the encounters feel different, you need something more. Perhaps Devils act in a unified manner (and have powers and abilities to aid them in working together), while Demons are a howling mob (but have the summoning ability). Or something.
> 
> But once you have something that sets them apart other than "is humanoid and uses weapons" or "is not humanoid and doesn't use weapons" then you don't need that as a distinction.




There are plenty of things that fit the description "is humanoid and uses weapons". Not all of them are devils.



> And that's good too - it means that the PCs who bothered investing in that skill actually get to use it in a meaningful manner.




By this argument, every monster should be an amorphous blob. That way, only the use of abstract in-game skill ranks can be used to distinguish different monsters, thus rewarding players who invest in those abstract in-game skill ranks rather than lazily relying on DMs to give meaningful descriptions of encounters.


----------



## avin (Sep 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> IMO there should only be 3 alignments: Good, Neutral & Evil.




And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.

It's all about motivation, IMO.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.



Tolkienesque D&D only has good, evil and maybe neutral. It's a simple bipolar universe - goodies vs. baddies. Moorcockian D&D has three alignments - law, chaos and balance (previously known as True Neutral). Swords & sorcery D&D should have no alignment system.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that the distinction between demon and devil is unimportant, and they should just have one set of bad guys, let's call them "fiends" or something. Which is also fine by me.



I can't speak for him, but that's not what I'm saying.  I like the idea of multiple kinds of fiends, but with different unifying themes.  Demons can be the lunatic, tear-you-apart monsters; devils can be the human-looking manipulative plotters; and daemons can be infernal power brokers and crooked salesmen of forbidden secrets.  But alignment doesn't have to enter into it.  I can imagine a lawful evil demon warlord, or a capricious chaotic evil devil.  But so long as they're recognizable as demons and devils and daemons, or whatever, alignment can get scrapped as the defining characteristic.


----------



## Aloïsius (Sep 2, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> But so long as they're recognizable as demons and devils and daemons, or whatever, alignment can get scrapped as the defining characteristic.



Yup. Alignment has always been problematic once you start drawing complex personality. The proof ? Start a thread (on another board...NOT one ENWORLD) about what is the alignment of a government, a corporation, or an historic or mythical figure. For fun just try to define what was Hitler or Gengis Khan alignment : most people will agree on the Evil vs Good axis, but the Law vs Chaos axis will be much more problematic...


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If that's the endpoint of what they care about, then they also won't care about the current setup. So complaints about breaking canon become irrelevant.




Agreed. But if one group of people prefer one solution over the other, and a second group don't care, then the solution to go with is the one preferred by the first group, even if they are by far a minority.

It is true, however, that there is a third group here - those who prefer the new arrangement. Whether they are numerous enough, and whether they care enough, to justify casting aside the existing canon is an open question.



> From the game-mechanical viewpoint, every monster is simply a collection of hit points, attacks and abilities to be defeated by the appropriate use of skills and expenditure of resources. That applies whether you're talking about demons, devils, dragons, or Joe Orc the 1st level warrior. Your point is...?




That the difference between monsters is in the arrangement of those powers, and in how they are used. If you want Demon encounters to feel different from Devil encounters, you need more than "humanoid and used weapons" vs. not. It's also not enough to simply vary the energy resistances.

A far better idea is to set up your Devils as having abilities to work closely together (Improved Flank, or whatever), while giving Demons abilities that better fit the 'undisciplined horde' motif.

Alternatively, as I discussed in an earlier post in this thread, assign the Devil the role of mastermind, and the Demon that of brute. Advise DMs that the best use for a Devil is as a more powerful lone creature, while the Demon fits better in a horde of weaker creatures.

And so, the balanced encounter for a 20th level party might be a lone CR22 Devil, or a CR18 Demon and half a dozen of his CR14 minions.



> There are plenty of things that fit the description "is humanoid and uses weapons". Not all of them are devils.




No, but when the DM says, "You see this", and plunks down the miniature of the Glabrezu, most players will be able to narrow it to Evil Outsider pretty quickly. Once you're there, getting to Demon or Devil will now be a matter of looking at the shape.



> By this argument, every monster should be an amorphous blob. That way, only the use of abstract in-game skill ranks can be used to distinguish different monsters, thus rewarding players who invest in those abstract in-game skill ranks rather than lazily relying on DMs to give meaningful descriptions of encounters.




Alternatively, those DMs should be describing the activities of the Demon in a manner consistent with their alignment (or other stated behaviour, if we're insistent on de-emphasising alignment even for creatures for which it makes sense not to do so), and as being distinctly different from the activites of Devils. Players should be paying attention to the previous encounters that they have had with creatures of these types, and therefore be drawing the conclusion based on what they have previously experienced.

Rather than saying, "oh, it's got weapons - break out the lightning bolts."


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2007)

Incidentally, I wonder what the reaction would be if WotC said, "there's an awful lot of redundancy in the low-level humanoid space. We have Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls and Lizardfolk all fighting for the same space. It's too many, so we've streamlined down to just three: Goblins, Orcs and Ogres."

I suspect it would be considerably less favourable than that which has been seen here, despite the fact that there is a lot of redundancy there. Kobolds, in particular, are a problem - their stats are such that they are only really suitable as foes for 1st or maybe 2nd level PCs, yet they are described as living in warrens of narrow, twisting and trap-filled tunnels. If you design such a lair as described, and run it realistically, not only do you have an adventure that isn't much fun (due to constantly squeezing, and problems in most of the party getting in on the action), but you've also got something that is almost a guaranteed TPK. ("Good going, guys; you just got your asses handed to you by kobolds _again_!"). Never mind "Tomb of Horrors" - Gygax should have taunted those "expert players" with his classic "Against the Kobolds" module!


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.
> 
> It's all about motivation, IMO.






  Having Good and Evil and no Law and Chaos doesnt mean every game is going to be a "black and white good versus evil campaign."

  At least, not anymore so than it will be anyway, since even with "Law" and "Chaos" it all still boils down to Good and Evil, or at least to Right and Wrong, and the space in between. 

  And thats the trouble with all aspects of D&D alignment. Nothing is given to the space in between, to ambiguity or indecision. Even "Neutrality" is an extreme in itself. 

  I dont think its about motivation. Its about intention. D&D alignment only takes actions into account. Your only "Good" in D&D if your a crusader, same with Evil. Most of the "neutrals" in D&D are in reality Good...people who have respect and decency toward other people, but dont necessarily spend most of their time evanglizing or fighting evil.

  And because of how the detect spells work, theres no room for ambiguity. Everyone detects as good, evil or neutral. I think there should be room for conflicted characters, who are teetering between good and evil. I dont mean neutrality, sitting on the fence, I mean being poised between the two.

  And, you do realize its possible to have enemies that are morally Good right? People can do bad, ill advised, harmful things for good reasons and good intentions.

  I dislike the "Law" "Chaos" bit of alignment in D&D...and really, how it deals with alignment in general. But I equally dislike, for instance, Monte Cook's decision to remove all alignment and concepts of Good and Evil from Arcana Evolved/Unearthed (especially since, as is often the case, it was simply replaced with other things that were clearly substitutes for Good and Evil.)





> Yup. Alignment has always been problematic once you start drawing complex personality. The proof ? Start a thread (on another board...NOT one ENWORLD) about what is the alignment of a government, a corporation, or an historic or mythical figure. For fun just try to define what was Hitler or Gengis Khan alignment : most people will agree on the Evil vs Good axis, but the Law vs Chaos axis will be much more problematic...





  Yep. Because "Law" and "Chaos" arent really alignment concepts. At best, D&D Law and Chaos are basically personality traits, or political views, better left to roleplaying.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Agreed. But if one group of people prefer one solution over the other, and a second group don't care, then the solution to go with is the one preferred by the first group, even if they are by far a minority.




Or the designers can do what they consider to be best for the game. That's their job, after all. You wouldn't want a game that was designed by committee, would you?



> It is true, however, that there is a third group here - those who prefer the new arrangement. Whether they are numerous enough, and whether they care enough, to justify casting aside the existing canon is an open question.




There are clearly enough people who like the new system and who care enough to turn this into a 12-page thread.



> That the difference between monsters is in the arrangement of those powers, and in how they are used. If you want Demon encounters to feel different from Devil encounters, you need more than "humanoid and used weapons" vs. not.




And it was claimed that the only difference between demons and devils would be in the appearance... where?



> It's also not enough to simply vary the energy resistances.




It was claimed that it would be enough to vary the energy resistances... where?



> A far better idea is to set up your Devils as having abilities to work closely together (Improved Flank, or whatever), while giving Demons abilities that better fit the 'undisciplined horde' motif.
> 
> Alternatively, as I discussed in an earlier post in this thread, assign the Devil the role of mastermind, and the Demon that of brute. Advise DMs that the best use for a Devil is as a more powerful lone creature, while the Demon fits better in a horde of weaker creatures.
> 
> And so, the balanced encounter for a 20th level party might be a lone CR22 Devil, or a CR18 Demon and half a dozen of his CR14 minions.




And having mechanical and thematic differences that reinforce and encourage different tactics between the two groups is a bad thing... why?



> No, but when the DM says, "You see this", and plunks down the miniature of the Glabrezu, most players will be able to narrow it to Evil Outsider pretty quickly. Once you're there, getting to Demon or Devil will now be a matter of looking at the shape.




Tch. You were saying that there was no point to different appearances if there could be other ways to distinguish demons and devils. The point is that there are other monsters in the world besides just demons and devils, so having them look different does not necessarily make life easier for metagaming players. Of course, if we really cared that much about metagaming players, we would have every monster in the world be described as an amorphous blob, wouldn't we?



> Alternatively, those DMs should be describing the activities of the Demon in a manner consistent with their alignment (or other stated behaviour,




Tch. First you say that players who spend points on skill ranks so as to distinguish otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be rewarded. Now you say that otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be described in a way that makes them easily distinguished without needing said skill ranks. Make up your mind.



> if we're insistent on de-emphasising alignment even for creatures for which it makes sense not to do so),




If alignment is going to be deemphasised as an in-game mechanic, then that applies to everything within the game world. None of this makes demons and devils somehow less significant or meaningful as opponents or elements of the game world. The challenge instead is to find other ways to make the distinction, besides the crutch of alignment. This should not be hard, given that other fantasy games manage to have demons and devils of various types, without needing alignment as well.



> and as being distinctly different from the activites of Devils. Players should be paying attention to the previous encounters that they have had with creatures of these types, and therefore be drawing the conclusion based on what they have previously experienced.




Exactly. Encounters with demons and devils should be different, and a part of that is the mechanical and thematic differences between the two groups.

Tell me again exactly how fighting a glabrezu is significantly different to fighting a cornugon IN A WAY THAT TELLS YOU ONE IS A DEMON AND THE OTHER IS A DEVIL, other than that you use lightning bolts against one but not the other.



> Rather than saying, "oh, it's got weapons - break out the lightning bolts."




And people were saying "oh, it's got weapons -- break out the lightning bolts"... when, exactly?


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I wonder what the reaction would be if WotC said, "there's an awful lot of redundancy in the low-level humanoid space. We have Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls and Lizardfolk all fighting for the same space. It's too many, so we've streamlined down to just three: Goblins, Orcs and Ogres."




I streamline it down to two: orcs and ogres. It works great. You should try it some time.


----------



## cerberus2112 (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> I am up for the change. I agree with a generic MM. What sounds really really weird to me, as a Wow player, is this "must be a role" enforcement: these use swords, these don't.
> 
> I can live without the Blood War.
> I can live without The Great Wheel.
> ...



Keep in mind, these are "This Encounter's roles," not "This Monster's Role."  A hobgoblin can be a berserker, an archer, a magical spellcaster, or a social challenge, all depending on what the Encounter calls for.  At least, this is the impression I get when reading their examples.  The Roles give you a set of stats by level to serve as a guideline, and you get the monster up to par for its role by what ever means you choose (adding levels, just giving it strait stats bonuses, whatever pleases you most).


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Or the designers can do what they consider to be best for the game. That's their job, after all. You wouldn't want a game that was designed by committee, would you?




The designers absolutely have the right to make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. I absolutely have the right not to like them. Furthermore, subject to the forbearance of the moderators, I have the right to say as much.



> Tch. First you say that players who spend points on skill ranks so as to distinguish otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be rewarded. Now you say that otherwise-indistinguishable monsters should be described in a way that makes them easily distinguished without needing said skill ranks. Make up your mind.




The first time a new monster is met without context, it should not be possible to determine whether it is a Demon or a Devil, short of using Knowledge(the planes). However, an expert player should, upon repeated encounters, and with context, be able to make the distinction with a reasonable degree of accuracy. My definition of "expert player" does not equate to "is able to see weapons", however.



> Tell me again exactly how fighting a glabrezu is significantly different to fighting a cornugon IN A WAY THAT TELLS YOU ONE IS A DEMON AND THE OTHER IS A DEVIL, other than that you use lightning bolts against one but not the other.




One is lawful and the other chaotic. As such, the DM should be using different tactics to show this point. Moreover, in the build-up to the combat, those differences should be emphasised - the Cornugon should be operating in a disciplined manner through various levels of underlings (probably with a militaristic bent, as befits its place in the heirarchy of the Hells), while the Glabrezu should be working in a manner better suited to breaking down social orders and heirarchies (focussing on subterfuge, for the same reason).

It is absolutely true that the current rules do a fairly poor job of distinguishing between the two, and that improvements can be made. However, the problems have _nothing_ to do with the relative appearances of the two groups. Rather than force them into these two camps (and then have to re-assign the Succubus, presumably redesign the Balor to no longer be humanoid or use weapons, and eliminate the Hellcat, for three), and make meta-gaming easier, they should be changing the mechanics, and providing guidance on the usage of these monsters to emphasise the differences.

IMO, of course.

In any case, I think I've said all I have to say on this topic, so I'm going to step out of the thread rather than test that forbearance of the moderators. To recap: I don't like the change to the cosmology, because it seems like change for the sake of change. I don't like the shoe-horning of Devils to be humanoid and use weapons, and Demons to be non-humanoid and not use weapons, because I feel it makes metagaming easier, does nothing to actually differentiate the encounters, and requires changes to several creatures that otherwise wouldn't be necessary. The merging of the succubus and the erinyes I actually don't mind... except that the succubus still fits the CE alignment better, and so should be a Demon.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> The designers absolutely have the right to make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. I absolutely have the right not to like them. Furthermore, subject to the forbearance of the moderators, I have the right to say as much.




Naturally. And I have the right to point out flaws in your arguments.



> The first time a new monster is met without context, it should not be possible to determine whether it is a Demon or a Devil, short of using Knowledge(the planes).




To be precise, the first time a devil is met without context, it should not be possible to determine that it is, in fact, a devil. And this is exactly what is allowed by making them humanoid in form. Whereas the first time a demon is met without context, it should not be possible to determine what kind of demon it is. And this is exactly what is allowed by making them variable in shape. Whether or not a devil can be confused with a demon is a matter of profound insignificance, because it's hardly the case that these are the only two groups of monsters in a D&D world.



> However, an expert player should, upon repeated encounters, and with context, be able to make the distinction with a reasonable degree of accuracy. My definition of "expert player" does not equate to "is able to see weapons", however.




Why do you consider that anybody is thinking that "expert player" equates to "is able to see weapons"?

Just because devils and demons are distinct from each other doesn't mean they can't be confused with other things. Okay, maybe demons should be indisputably demons (just as dragons are indisputably dragons) but it seems eminently reasonable and in keeping with the source material that devils, as tempters, seducers and corrupters, should appear to be perfectly ordinary humans at first glance. So what if this means you can tell demons and devils apart? In the overall scheme of the D&D monster menagerie, that's a trivial issue.



> One is lawful and the other chaotic. As such, the DM should be using different tactics to show this point.
> 
> Moreover, in the build-up to the combat, those differences should be emphasised - the Cornugon should be operating in a disciplined manner through various levels of underlings (probably with a militaristic bent, as befits its place in the heirarchy of the Hells), while the Glabrezu should be working in a manner better suited to breaking down social orders and heirarchies (focussing on subterfuge, for the same reason).




And wouldn't it be great if the actual stats, mechanics and in-game descriptions for these monsters encouraged such differentiation in theme, rather than seeming to be random accretions of natural and magical abilities? I certainly think so.



> It is absolutely true that the current rules do a fairly poor job of distinguishing between the two, and that improvements can be made. However, the problems have _nothing_ to do with the relative appearances of the two groups. Rather than force them into these two camps (and then have to re-assign the Succubus, presumably redesign the Balor to no longer be humanoid or use weapons, and eliminate the Hellcat, for three), and make meta-gaming easier, they should be changing the mechanics,




Changing the mechanics... you mean, like giving devils weapons but not demons? Or giving demons bigass natural attacks, but not devils?



> In any case, I think I've said all I have to say on this topic, so I'm going to step out of the thread rather than test that forbearance of the moderators. To recap: I don't like the change to the cosmology, because it seems like change for the sake of change.




No, it's change for the sake of making the D&D monster menagerie more meaningful and useful as a source of varied encounters.



> I don't like the shoe-horning of Devils to be humanoid and use weapons, and Demons to be non-humanoid and not use weapons, because I feel it makes metagaming easier,




It makes metagaming a trivial issue easier, while facilitating distinctions that help deepen the identity of both groups.



> does nothing to actually differentiate the encounters,




Of course it does. For one thing, devils and demons will automatically do different things without the DM needing to remind himself to do this.



> and requires changes to several creatures that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.




Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that the distinction between demon and devil is unimportant, and they should just have one set of bad guys, let's call them "fiends" or something. Which is also fine by me.




What I am saying is I like the new distinction between the two.  The devils are fallen angels giving them a more humanoid appearence and the demons are a more primordial evil, thus more beastlike in appearence.  To me it is better than the whole law vs. chaos ideology.  Both are evil.  Law & Chaos should be more a matter of flavor in the case of these creatures, not something that shoehorns them into their behavior.  Devils will be probably be played as a corrupting force - "The Devil made me do it!" and demons will probably be more destructive forces.  This will keep both in line with the LE/CE concepts, but since alignment is getting an overhaul, they may remove these descriptions (LE/CE).  I like having different fiends, but unless you were a DM, it was hard to distinguish between them in the previous editions.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> What I am saying is I like the new distinction between the two.  The devils are fallen angels giving them a more humanoid appearence and the demons are a more primordial evil, thus more beastlike in appearence.  To me it is better than the whole law vs. chaos ideology.  Both are evil.  Law & Chaos should be more a matter of flavor in the case of these creatures, not something that shoehorns them into their behavior.  Devils will be probably be played as a corrupting force - "The Devil made me do it!" and demons will probably be more destructive forces.  This will keep both in line with the LE/CE concepts, but since alignment is getting an overhaul, they may remove these descriptions (LE/CE).  I like having different fiends, but unless you were a DM, it was hard to distinguish between them in the previous editions.



 Fair enough.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> And make every game a Black & White good vs evil campaign? No, thank you sir. But I can agree with you to something: let's get rid of chaos and law if we get rid of good and evil too.
> 
> It's all about motivation, IMO.




I said 3 alignments. Good, NEUTRAL and Evil.  I don't like black & white worlds, and that's the main rason I stopped playing Paladins (who were my fav class for a long time when I first started playing).  To me the world is a grey place.  

I suppose that's what has drawn me towards the Ebberon setting.  Lots of intrigue and uncertainty about who you're really working for when someone approaches you with a quest.  I didn't like it at first, but the more I read about it the more it grew on me.  Much like FR did when I first read the Grey Box set and before it became the oversaturated beast it is today.

For me alignment is a tool.  Unfortunately, many people use it the wrong way & force players to act in a certain way because the alignment rules say they should behave that way.  I hope the new rules are more flexible regarding this.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can't speak for him, but that's not what I'm saying.  I like the idea of multiple kinds of fiends, but with different unifying themes.  Demons can be the lunatic, tear-you-apart monsters; devils can be the human-looking manipulative plotters; and daemons can be infernal power brokers and crooked salesmen of forbidden secrets.  But alignment doesn't have to enter into it.  I can imagine a lawful evil demon warlord, or a capricious chaotic evil devil.  But so long as they're recognizable as demons and devils and daemons, or whatever, alignment can get scrapped as the defining characteristic.




Amen brother!


----------



## avin (Sep 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> I said 3 alignments. Good, NEUTRAL and Evil.




Ok, but why do you feel that such things  are more valuable than chaos and law? Why Evil should be more important than Chaos? Don't get me wrong, it still doesn't make sense to me =/


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> Ok, but why do you feel that such things  are more valuable than chaos and law? Why Evil should be more important than Chaos? Don't get me wrong, it still doesn't make sense to me =/





  Because alignment is about people's behaviour primarily, and Chaos doesnt much influence peoples behaviour. Chaos is random. People choose their behaviour, it isn't random. Unless their crazy. 

  Order and Chaos are basically physical forces that help run the physical world...and that are basically just a loop, parts of the same whole. That has little to do with "alignment".

  Laws are primarily rules set down by thinking beings. Most laws, in real life and in fiction, exist to basically either protect people and prevent harmful acts (and are therefore just Good) or to repress people while giving power to others (and so are basically just Evil.)


  D&D Law and Chaos essentially consist of personality traits and/or political leanings that are better left to roleplay, rather than being tied in to mechanics.

  Its like having Smite _politician _or Protection from Compulsives.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 2, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Because alignment is about people's behaviour primarily, and Chaos doesnt much influence peoples behaviour. Chaos is random. People choose their behaviour, it isn't random. Unless their crazy.
> 
> Order and Chaos are basically physical forces that help run the physical world...and that are basically just a loop, parts of the same whole. That has little to do with "alignment".
> 
> ...



 Coming from a much more Chaotic society than you, I must say Chaos and Law are very important concepts.

Traditional fantasy settings always seem like LG civilization vs. CE monsters. I'd like to see a setting that is much more LE with NG or CG adventurers.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> Ok, but why do you feel that such things  are more valuable than chaos and law? Why Evil should be more important than Chaos? Don't get me wrong, it still doesn't make sense to me =/




Good and Evil are more basic moral concepts that have been around as long as humans.  Law and Chaos, as someone else already pointed out, are more of a political concept.  Do you obey the law?  I'm sure most of us do.  Most of us break it too, whether it's speeding down the road, jaywalking or perhaps someother more serious crime.  

We can get into a real long argument here about what is lawful and what isn't.  Take the girl in Ireland from about 5 years ago (I think-it made the news in North America anyway) who was impregnated by a rape and wanted an abortion.  Coming from a Roman Catholic community, it was illegal for her to do so and from what I recall she went ahead with the abortion (may have been in the States or England, I believe).  She did what she felt was for the greater good.  She was probably an otherwise law-abiding citizen.  Is she now chaotic because she broke a serious law in her homeland?  It's legal in other places!  But whether she is lawful or chaotic I bet through all of it she is a Good person , although some might argue the that what she did was Evil.  Most people consider the same things to be Good-helping others in need, or Evil-killing for personal gain or pleasure, no matter what part of the world you live in.  But what is lawful and what is not depend on what the local laws are.

But enough of the real world, let's get back to the fantasy concept.  A great deal of the Law vs. Chaos ideology comes from Michael Moorcocks Elric series.  It has been a loooooong time since I read those books, but (correct ,me if I'm wrong) from what I recall the concepts were more Law=Good, Chaos=Evil.  If you want to run your campaign with a law vs. chaos dichotomy that's fine.  I just don't like the way the 9 alignment system shoehorns characters into a certain type of behavior.  

Being morally Good, Evil or ambiguous/apathetic (Neutral) to me is more inherit in a person than Lawful/Chaotic.  To me it makes more sense to say your character is 1 of those 3-Good, Neutral or Evil.  There actions will usually be the same in most situations, (except the Neutral guy who can go either way).  Would a Paladin not help an innocent person in need because his High Cleric or King orderd it?  By the rules one way or the other he will be acting out of alignment.  By their good nature, in my eyes, the Paladin (they are based off heroic knights after all) would help the person, laws be damned, which would make it either a Neutral or Chaotic Good act.  Does that mean he is now at risk of losing his Paladin status?  Obviously Paladins follow a code (chivalry) that they adhere to, but the current rules force the character into following that code with little leeway.  The code should be followed because it's a part of that character, not because of the rules.  I.E. Paladins have to follow the code, but other LG characters don't have to, even though they may have near identical ideologies.  Lightening up by removing the law/chaos as alignment rules, and making them into guidlines would make the game better IMO.  Of course the same could be argued for Good & Evil, but really most fantasy is based off the concept of Good vs. Evil and the designers have already said they're not getting rid of alignment, just reworking it.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 2, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Coming from a much more Chaotic society than you, I must say Chaos and Law are very important concepts.
> 
> Traditional fantasy settings always seem like LG civilization vs. CE monsters. I'd like to see a setting that is much more LE with NG or CG adventurers.




While I agree the concepts of Law & Chaos are important to flavor, they should not be rule.  Not as much rule as Good & Evil should be anyway.  Your LE dictator would probably bend/break laws to furter his personal gain, thus making him more NE or CE.  Why not just Evil then?  Even if he has Lawful tendencies.

As someone else stated Chaos implies randomness or craziness.  While they (law/chaos) work well in concept, they are not so good for rule.  CN can get away with anything as long as they don't do too much of one thing.  LG are very restricted.  LE can get away with more because even if they break the law, it's still within they're evil nature to be self-serving.  They just don't like to get caught.  By that definition most politicians are LE.  Even if most of us live in a supposed called LG society.

Am I correct in assuming your concept is probably more like Star Wars.  The LE Empire rules while NG/CG freedom fighters are the heroes?  Speaking of Heroes,  I think that show is one of the best portrayals of why the current alignment system doesn't fit good (good as in well portrayed, not alignment) characters/people.  You can gtry to give those characters alignments, but almost all of them do something that falls out of the one they mostly fit into.  The world is a grey place.  That's why IMO alignment is better used as a tool than a rule.


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Naturally. And I have the right to point out flaws in your arguments.




... as you see them. But yes, in hindsight I see that I should have noted that.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 2, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> ...[W]hat I don't like is completely disregarding past material.




If the previous material was poorly thought out in several respects, and I think it was, then it should be trashed with no regrets.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 2, 2007)

For what its worth, "Law" and "Chaos" are more accurately termed "Order" and "Chaos."  And the way they are presented is as more of a cosmic thing than as a political thought process in D&D.

Law and/or Order represents the idea that you see the world as a place that was planned and structured, and that structure should occur and be reinforced, and the overall the universe is better with a grand plan and structure.

Chaos is the not following a specific plan, and trusting that either the universe will work itself out without having a plan, or that the universe is destined to fall apart anyway, and since entropy is inevitable, there is no point in fretting over it.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 2, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I wonder what the reaction would be if WotC said, "there's an awful lot of redundancy in the low-level humanoid space. We have Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls and Lizardfolk all fighting for the same space. It's too many, so we've streamlined down to just three: Goblins, Orcs and Ogres."




My reaction would be: "It's about time!"


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I streamline it down to two: orcs and ogres. It works great. You should try it some time.



I actually use all kobolds and goblins.  OTOH, my goblins have a hive intelligence and are artificers; something like a cross between an evil tinker gnome and a warhammer ork.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Sep 3, 2007)

One bit I particularly liked:



> The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.




Now they have a reason to want to be summoned, and a reason to tell said summoners that they're willing to serve him, you just have to sign here first, don't worry about the little details, I'll fill them in later...


And for my opinion on Erinyes, I'll repost something I wrote over at rpgnet: 



> Oh, and my opinion on the Erinyes for whoever wants it: they should be the LN replacements for the Inevitables, who suck.
> 
> The Erinyes should of course serve Nemesis, who I think should be the LN goddess for the implied setting - she's real world, she fits the alignment and she has the most metal name ever!.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I streamline it down to two: orcs and ogres. It works great. You should try it some time.




Agreed. Although I also use Gnolls and Lizardfolk as more fringe/wilderness humanoids, wherease Orcs and Ogres are the humanoids who interact in an interesting fashion with other civilisations (as is shown by the existence of Half-Orcs and Half-Ogres).


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Sep 3, 2007)

I think the change is an interesting one, and I personally prefer it compared to the 2nd ed. reimaging.

However, I usually lumped all of the demons, devils, daemons/`loths, demodands, hordelings, and even slaads into one big "fiend" category, with the `loths at the top of the chain, manipulating all of the other fiends into doing their bidding.

One idea I was intending to use, and it's an idea I think could have worked for 4e, was to have Devils be an advanced sort of demon (akin to hobgoblins and bugbears being more potent versions of goblins).  Even have "devil" be a title of potent demons.

However, the new devil/demon split works well.  I could care less about the rebranding of the succubus--just as long as they look the same & some hot gamer girls feel compelled to cosplay them at conventions...    

... I mean, what?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 3, 2007)

I mentioned it on another board, but I wonder if we'll see any other merging based on simliarities.

orc, ogrillion, ogre, hill giant, troll, kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, etc....


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Sep 3, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> ...She did what she felt was for the greater good.  She was probably an otherwise law-abiding citizen.  Is she now chaotic because she broke a serious law in her homeland?  It's legal in other places!  But whether she is lawful or chaotic I bet through all of it she is a Good person , although some might argue the that what she did was Evil.  (...)  But what is lawful and what is not depend on what the local laws are.




I don't know; I will reserve my opinion on the girl, but what I really think is, you're missing the point.  It doesn't take the disrespect of one law (or one specific law) to turn you from Lawful to Chaotic.  What matters is, do you _believe_ you're better off with or without laws?  Or better, Is it better to have organisation or to let things happen at their own pace?  If you're Lawful, you'll naturally want to follow laws, or set them up.  You'll try to cooperate with others to achieve your goals (be they fair or foul) and try to set up an environment where everyone can know what is expected of them.

On the other hand, if you're Chaotic, you have little use for strictures; everyone has tugged along at their own pace, and somehow, they've found an equilibrium.  You thrive off that equilibrium, pursuing your own goals (be they fair or foul) without much heed as to what others expect of you.

So it was the same with Devils and Demons:  Devils/Baatezu feel the need to work within a defined structure, and subvert it to their own baleful needs.  Thus, they are deceivers and slanderers, but they try to work from within mortal society.  Demons/Tanar'ri have little need for this -- they are rapers and destroyers, and will bring to ruin all that is good and fair by fire and steel, if need be; in fact, they much prefer that method!

Of course, even if alignment is de-emphasized, the ghosts of those ancestral roles still remain.  Because, in the end, they're still very interesting archetypes for villains the heroes can be set against.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 3, 2007)

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> I don't know; I will reserve my opinion on the girl, but what I really think is, you're missing the point.  It doesn't take the disrespect of one law (or one specific law) to turn you from Lawful to Chaotic.  What matters is, do you _believe_ you're better off with or without laws?  Or better, Is it better to have organisation or to let things happen at their own pace?  If you're Lawful, you'll naturally want to follow laws, or set them up.  You'll try to cooperate with others to achieve your goals (be they fair or foul) and try to set up an environment where everyone can know what is expected of them.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're Chaotic, you have little use for strictures; everyone has tugged along at their own pace, and somehow, they've found an equilibrium.  You thrive off that equilibrium, pursuing your own goals (be they fair or foul) without much heed as to what others expect of you.
> .





  But see, most people dont really give a flip about either of those things. Most people want to be safe, and they want to be able to persue the things that make them happy. They generally only care about laws, or the lack thereof, insofar as they help or hinder those goals. 

  Most people who believe in and/or make laws do so for one of two reasons: to further the greater good, at least as they see it, or conversely to further whatever their own goals may be, regardless of their effects on others. Which is to say, to do Good, or Evil (or bad or wrong at least). 

 Likewise, most people who are totally against having laws and rules etc feel that way either because they feel it is the better/more beneficial way for people to be, or because they themselves want to be able to do whatever they want without fear of consquences. Again, basically it stems from Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, or at least peoples views of them. Generally, if people think about "Law" and 'Chaos" at all, its as means to an end, not as ends in themselves.


  The closest that people usually come to being "Lawful" or "Chaotic" is one or both of two ways. One is politics...either actually being in politics, or even just a persons political views. The other is personality traits...obessive/compulsives, or just highly neat and orderly people could be said to have "lawful" personalites I suppose. But do any of those things really justify having spells to specifically affect people with that trait? Why not have "Smite People Who's Favorite Colour is Yellow?"


----------



## Merlion (Sep 3, 2007)

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> For what its worth, "Law" and "Chaos" are more accurately termed "Order" and "Chaos."  And the way they are presented is as more of a cosmic thing than as a political thought process in D&D.
> 
> Law and/or Order represents the idea that you see the world as a place that was planned and structured, and that structure should occur and be reinforced, and the overall the universe is better with a grand plan and structure.
> 
> Chaos is the not following a specific plan, and trusting that either the universe will work itself out without having a plan, or that the universe is destined to fall apart anyway, and since entropy is inevitable, there is no point in fretting over it.





  This may be how its presented in settings like Planescape, but in core D&D "Law" and "Chaos" basically represent poltical leanings and/or personality traits that have for some reason been made part of the "alignment" system.


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 3, 2007)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> Well, they did just invalidate two of their best books, the Fiendish Codices.  As someone who enjoys the history of D&D itself, this just strikes me as odd.  Looks like poor Malcanthet and Castle Maure are going to have their stories rocked.



This thread nearly makes me cry in frustration. No, they did not invalidate those books, no more than Eberron invalidates the default settings. If you like those books, and they work for your campaign, keep using them. There is no reason you can't keep using the fluff put forth in those books. None.


----------



## avin (Sep 3, 2007)

No offense, but I disagree. Good and Evil are the same as Chaos and Order or Black and White or Autumn and Spring. You fail to convince me, sorry.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 3, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> No offense, but I disagree. Good and Evil are the same as Chaos and Order or Black and White or Autumn and Spring. You fail to convince me, sorry.





  This doesnt really make sense to me in the context of the discussion.

My only point is: a game with alignment, but without "Law" and "Chaos" but with Good and Evil isnt automatically some unsophisticated black and white straight forward thing, by any means.

 And that "Law" and "Chaos" as presented in D&D are basically character traits and politics and just dont have much place in the concept of personally alignment, or on the spell lists.

  And lastly, that most people in reality dont really give a flip about "law" and "Chaos". They care about safety, and about having/doing what they want...and most decisions they make are based on either their idea of whats right (good) or simply on their desires.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 4, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This doesnt really make sense to me in the context of the discussion.
> 
> My only point is: a game with alignment, but without "Law" and "Chaos" but with Good and Evil isnt automatically some unsophisticated black and white straight forward thing, by any means.
> 
> ...



 "Law" and "Chaos" don't need to have anything to do with politics.

Lawful characters value tradition, preparation, living in groups, caution.

Chaotic characters value innovation, improvisation, living independently, daring.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 4, 2007)

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> I don't know; I will reserve my opinion on the girl, but what I really think is, you're missing the point.  It doesn't take the disrespect of one law (or one specific law) to turn you from Lawful to Chaotic.  What matters is, do you _believe_ you're better off with or without laws?  Or better, Is it better to have organisation or to let things happen at their own pace?  If you're Lawful, you'll naturally want to follow laws, or set them up.  You'll try to cooperate with others to achieve your goals (be they fair or foul) and try to set up an environment where everyone can know what is expected of them.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're Chaotic, you have little use for strictures; everyone has tugged along at their own pace, and somehow, they've found an equilibrium.  You thrive off that equilibrium, pursuing your own goals (be they fair or foul) without much heed as to what others expect of you.
> 
> ...




I do see your point.  Perhaps the example of the girl was too narrow in it's field of view, however that is how some players/DMs (especially newer ones) seem to treat alignment.  With a narrow field of view.  These same people are often the Rule Nazi's.  They find obscure rules & say you can't do that because on page# of this accessory it says..... A lot of fun is taken out of the game when dealing with those folk.  I suspect the changes in 4E will be to lessen some of these situations.  

My argument was Law and Chaos are not as fundimentaly important as Good & Evil in terms of alignment as a rule.  I like your definition of chaotic, but if your character's goals & equilibrium are too similar to a lawful or neutral characters (more likely the latter), even if you consider it to be marching to your own beat, the can rules find you not acting chaotic enough and thus forcing an alignment change or penalizing your character, depending on which class you are.  Hence why I said there should only be 3 alignments in terms of rules Good, Neutral & Evil.  Law vs. Chaos to me is more flavor (as you pointed out with the ancestral roles of Demons & Devils).  Of course the same argument could be made for Good & Evil, but for new players I think those should be kept as fundamentals.

As I have said before, to me alignment is a tool.  I don't like the way many people read it as black or white or as a "written in stone" rule.  The world is a grey place and hopefuly the new rules will address that fact.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 4, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Law" and "Chaos" don't need to have anything to do with politics.
> 
> Lawful characters value tradition, preparation, living in groups, caution.
> 
> Chaotic characters value innovation, improvisation, living independently, daring.





  Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits. 

"Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both. 



  Aside from that, another reason why many value the Good/Evil aspect more highly: People can generally agree on many basics of Good and Evil, or at least of right and wrong behaviour. On the other hand, what constitutes "lawful" or "chaotic" is often very subjective. They also tend to cross over quite a lot in some areas...since they are really just phases of the same thing...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 4, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits.
> 
> "Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both.




So, good and evil aren't personality traits?  What are we describing, if not a person's tendency to act in a particular way?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 4, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits.
> 
> "Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both.




The personality traits part was touched upon above me...so I'll hit the other.

How do Good and Evil not consist of politics? It seems like that would be just as important to Good and Evil...if not moreso.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So, good and evil aren't personality traits?  What are we describing, if not a person's tendency to act in a particular way?





  In D&D Good and Evil are states of being which can make a person or thing subject to particular magical effects, which I am fine with. I don't think "law" and "chaos" should have the same effect.

  Also within D&D (and within the real world) Good and Evil are overall, widely accepted concepts of right and wrong, not simply traits or quirks that people have. Now yes, Law and Chaos are also, to some extent, put forth as "cosmic concepts" in D&D (mostly in a way i find very forced and contrived) but in the actual alignment descreptions, the factors or things that supposedly make one "lawful" or "chaotic" strike me as simply have a certain type of personality or certain political views. Wereas being good or evil basically implies wether one is decent and has some regard for others...or does not.

  And in most fantasy, conflicts are usually primarily between good and evil...or, between right and wrong, or both. Even the ones that use law/order and chaos terminology, or some other substitute, it still basically ends up being Good and Evil.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Sep 4, 2007)

Good and Evil are moral choices, not personality traits. The Good/Evil axis of alignment reflects the being's moral choice tendencies.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 4, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Good and Evil are moral choices, not personality traits. The Good/Evil axis of alignment reflects the being's moral choice tendencies.




Agreed.  There is less moral abiguity in Good vs. Evil than in Law vs. Chaos.  If Law & Chaos are supposed to be reflections of one's behavior, in the sense of their outlook on life, i.e. chaotic characters are more carefree, passionate, creative & impulsive vs. lawful who are more rigid, organized, group oriented then where does a charcter like Robin Hood fit in.  Most will instincitvely say CG.  But he was only chaotic when Prince John was on the throne.  When King Richard was around he was a loyalist, who followed his just and lawful King's rule.  Therefore he should be LG.  But since he did a bit of both, maybe he's NG?  (if i remember correctly he was used as an example of CG in at least one edition of D&D) The point here is he is Good.  In terms of law & chaos there is more ambiguity of what is lawful & what is chaotic.  Moral choice =Good/Evil    Personality trait/political belief = Law/Chaos


----------



## Gentlegamer (Sep 4, 2007)

A Lawful Good character can resist a tyrant (unjust acts of authority that therefore do not have moral force of obedience), so Robin Hood could very well be LG.

_Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God._


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 4, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> A Lawful Good character can resist a tyrant (unjust acts of authority that therefore do not have moral force of obedience), so Robin Hood could very well be LG.
> 
> _Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God._




That's exactly my point, he could be LG, even though he's usually portrayed as CG, or at least NG.  Law & Chaos are not as important alignment factors as Good and Evil.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 4, 2007)

*Law vs Chaos*



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Lawful characters value tradition, preparation, living in groups, caution.
> 
> Chaotic characters value innovation, improvisation, living independently, daring.



TSR in Oriental Adventures said that samurai must be lawful, because they value tradition and preparation. An author whose name I can't remember in Best of White Dwarf II said that samurai are chaotic, because they are individualists in combat and value daring. 1e DDG made many of the Japanese gods chaotic for much the same sort of reason.



			
				DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> If Law & Chaos are supposed to be reflections of one's behavior, in the sense of their outlook on life, i.e. chaotic characters are more carefree, passionate, creative & impulsive vs. lawful who are more rigid, organized, group oriented then where does a charcter like Robin Hood fit in.  Most will instincitvely say CG.  But he was only chaotic when Prince John was on the throne.  When King Richard was around he was a loyalist, who followed his just and lawful King's rule.  Therefore he should be LG.  But since he did a bit of both, maybe he's NG?  (if i remember correctly he was used as an example of CG in at least one edition of D&D)



I agree entirely with this example as a counterexample to the utility of Law and Chaos as alignment categories in D&D.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> The closest that people usually come to being "Lawful" or "Chaotic" is one or both of two ways. One is politics...either actually being in politics, or even just a persons political views. The other is personality traits...obessive/compulsives, or just highly neat and orderly people could be said to have "lawful" personalites I suppose. But do any of those things really justify having spells to specifically affect people with that trait? Why not have "Smite People Who's Favorite Colour is Yellow?"



Agreed to some extent, but as the samurai and Robin Hood examples show, the notions of law and chaos don't even pick out a coherent body of character traits.



			
				Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> If you're Lawful, you'll naturally want to follow laws, or set them up.  You'll try to cooperate with others to achieve your goals (be they fair or foul) and try to set up an environment where everyone can know what is expected of them.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're Chaotic, you have little use for strictures; everyone has tugged along at their own pace, and somehow, they've found an equilibrium.  You thrive off that equilibrium, pursuing your own goals (be they fair or foul) without much heed as to what others expect of you.
> 
> So it was the same with Devils and Demons:  Devils/Baatezu feel the need to work within a defined structure, and subvert it to their own baleful needs.



Isn't subverting existing structures a Chaotic act?!


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 4, 2007)

Puggins said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it was a bad thing, mind you- TONS of people loved it, but I have to say that a little bit of wonder sorta died within me- the new Demons and Devils were Machiavellian masters of intrigue and power, but weren't the might masters of reality and time that they used to be.



WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SENSE OF WONDER?!?

I swear the funny there still has legs.  I'll be laughing about that for a long time to come.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 4, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Coming from a much more Chaotic society than you, I must say Chaos and Law are very important concepts.
> 
> Traditional fantasy settings always seem like LG civilization vs. CE monsters. I'd like to see a setting that is much more LE with NG or CG adventurers.




Have you checked out Midnight? I don't own it but from what I've read of it society is dominated by an evil god that conquered most of the world and the PCs are renegades who stand up against the dark.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Sep 4, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> But enough of the real world, let's get back to the fantasy concept.  A great deal of the Law vs. Chaos ideology comes from Michael Moorcocks Elric series.  It has been a loooooong time since I read those books, but (correct ,me if I'm wrong) from what I recall the concepts were more Law=Good, Chaos=Evil.  If you want to run your campaign with a law vs. chaos dichotomy that's fine.



It wasn't exactly that simple. The basic alignment conceit in Moorcock's _Eternal Champion_ books was that the ideal state of the universe is Balance, a dynamic, active, beneficial neutrality (NG by D&D standards, I think), where Law and Chaos are equally represented. Excess of Law was bad, because it resulted in stasis, where nothing happened; excess of Chaos was equally bad, because it led to chaos where nothing was stable.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 4, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> It wasn't exactly that simple. The basic alignment conceit in Moorcock's _Eternal Champion_ books was that the ideal state of the universe is Balance, a dynamic, active, beneficial neutrality (NG by D&D standards, I think), where Law and Chaos are equally represented. Excess of Law was bad, because it resulted in stasis, where nothing happened; excess of Chaos was equally bad, because it led to chaos where nothing was stable.





  But, from what I understand and what you just said, the "ideal condition" was still basically Good, and excess of "law" or "chaos" basically amounted to "Evil".


  Most conflicts...especially most fantasy conflicts, come down to some form of "right" and "wrong"...which is usually translated to Good and Evil, but some times other terms are used. 


And this essentially supports my own feelings...that Order and Chaos are simply balancing arms that keep the world more or less physically running...whereas Good and Evil are about morality...about what should and shouldnt be.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 4, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> It wasn't exactly that simple. The basic alignment conceit in Moorcock's _Eternal Champion_ books was that the ideal state of the universe is Balance, a dynamic, active, beneficial neutrality (NG by D&D standards, I think), where Law and Chaos are equally represented. Excess of Law was bad, because it resulted in stasis, where nothing happened; excess of Chaos was equally bad, because it led to chaos where nothing was stable.




Taken from Wikipedia: Elric of Melniboné



> Being Emperor of Melniboné, he is a servant of the Lords of Chaos. Unlike his fellow Melnibonéans, who are decadent, cruel, and mostly devoid of sentiment and the gentler passions, Elric is plagued by his conscience, has modern sensibilities and is very curious about the outside world. Melnibonéans are somewhat like elves – but more like the amoral fairies in Jack Vance's Lyonesse books than J. R. R. Tolkien's majestic peoples – and "Elric" is a form of the Old English Ælfric which means elf ruler. In this way, Elric breaks the mold of the stereotypical Albino depicted in stories as a heartless monster.




Decadent, cruel and devoid of sentiment and other gentler passions: sounds Evil to me. Having a conscience and modern sensibilites (I'm assuming in relation to modern day western society) sounds Good.  Also appears he may have been an influence for Drizz't from FR.



> As an embodiment of the Eternal Champion, which mainly takes the form of a champion of Law, Elric is torn between his ancestry and his destiny. Consequently, as the saga progresses Elric's allegiance turns from Chaos towards Law. He eventually comes to represent a balance between these forces as he develops a hatred for all gods, both of Law and Chaos, for their manipulation of mortals. At the end, Elric's hopes for a world without gods who make a misery of human lives, results in his death while attempting to bring such a world into being.




Looks like he was Good all along, compared to his Chaotic(Evil) heritage.  In contrast, it appears the lawful gods of this series are Evil as well.  He didn't like either of them, so I have to agree with your NG comparison regarding Elric's alignment.  Or maybe it was his Evil sword pushing his buttons.  I'll have to read these books again!



> Arioch, Lord of the Seven Darks, Lord of the Higher Hell, The Knight of Swords: One of the mightiest Dukes of Hell and a Chaos Lord. He is the perennial patron of the Melnibonéan emperors and is responsible for much of their sorcerous power and long rule. He finds Elric to be one of his sweetest servants, as Elric's moral dilemmas provide him with much sport.




Duke of Hell and Chaos lord who enjoys Elric's moral dilemmas.  Sounds like Chaos is Evil to me.



> Elric is the (often unwilling) tool of his evil, sentient sword Stormbringer, which is itself a parody of the normal sword-and-sorcery hero's weapon. In Stormbringer, the sickly Elric finds the energy he needs, but at a terrible price – Stormbringer feeds on the souls of those it slays and gives part of their life force to sustain Elric. Stormbringer is willful, and by no means under Elric's control:
> 
> This sword here at my side don't act the way it should. Keeps calling me its master, but I feel like its slave.
> —Blue Öyster Cult, "Black Blade" (lyrics by Michael Moorcock)




Here the sword is described as Evil.  Was it called called Chaotic in the books?



> Donblas, the Justice Maker: A Lord of Law, the only one named in the saga. He aids Elric in his ultimate struggles against Chaos.




I suppose this one could be read as Good or Evil, as he is aiding Elric against his own enemies.

From what I've gathered here, it appears both rulers of Chaos and Law are all evil.  Elric defies his chaotic (evil) nature, but as things progress he finds the gods of Law are evil too.  Elric, being Good, ends up fighting both.  

From my point of view, this is again a battle of Good vs. Evil.  Elric is good (mostly),  but constantly struggles with his social position & the will of his sword.  All the gods are evil.  The Chaotics being more blatent, but the Lawful ones being more manipulative.  Elric battles the obvious (chaotic) ones first, but then discovers the Lawful ones are Evil too.  Hmmm sounds familiar.  We could just drop Demons & Devils into the place of Chaos & Law and wind up with something similar.  Again it's Good vs. Evil with Law & Chaos being more of a description of how they are Good or Evil.  Personality traits & politics.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 4, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> Taken from Wikipedia: Elric of Melniboné
> 
> Decadent, cruel and devoid of sentiment and other gentler passions: sounds Evil to me. Having a conscience and modern sensibilites (I'm assuming in relation to modern day western society) sounds Good.  Also appears he may have been an influence for Drizz't from FR.



In this case, wikipedia is doing you wrong if you've come to the conclusion that Elric is "good" by any stretch of the imagination. He is strongly motivated by eldritch passions and selfish desires (curiosity, revenge, etc.) rather than any desire to do good. He dooms friends, lovers, and allies to die, in many cases for his own selfish purposes (witness the invasion of Melnibone that he "commands").


> Looks like he was Good all along, compared to his Chaotic(Evil) heritage.  In contrast, it appears the lawful gods of this series are Evil as well.



Elric doesn't appear to develop any hatred for the Lords of Law, actually; they tend to get a good rap from him. 


> Duke of Hell and Chaos lord who enjoys Elric's moral dilemmas.  Sounds like Chaos is Evil to me.



"Hell" doesn't mean the same thing in Moorcock's cosmology as in, say, the Christian; he's using the idea of Hell as a jumping-off point for the alien or feared. That said, Arioch is presented as just flat-out evil; I always felt that Moorcock really dropped the ball in consistently showing only the "bad sides" of Chaos, since he made it an enemy in every single one(?) of his Eternal Champion books.


> Here the sword is described as Evil.  Was it called called Chaotic in the books?



Chaos-forged, yes. Defined as "evil" separately from its origins: Yes.


> I suppose this one could be read as Good or Evil, as he is aiding Elric against his own enemies.
> 
> From what I've gathered here, it appears both rulers of Chaos and Law are all evil.  Elric defies his chaotic (evil) nature, but as things progress he finds the gods of Law are evil too.  Elric, being Good, ends up fighting both.



Not so.  


> From my point of view, this is again a battle of Good vs. Evil.  Elric is good (mostly),  but constantly struggles with his social position & the will of his sword.  All the gods are evil.  The Chaotics being more blatent, but the Lawful ones being more manipulative.  Elric battles the obvious (chaotic) ones first, but then discovers the Lawful ones are Evil too.  Hmmm sounds familiar.  We could just drop Demons & Devils into the place of Chaos & Law and wind up with something similar.  Again it's Good vs. Evil with Law & Chaos being more of a description of how they are Good or Evil.  Personality traits & politics.



Actually no. It's more a Nietzschean rejection of "divine influence" as a damning cycle of behavior than a good-vs.-evil thing. Moreover, Elric never turns against the Lords of Law. Interestingly enough, the Chronicles of Corum end up this way as well, with the influence of both Law and Chaos banished from the world.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Sep 4, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> In this case, wikipedia is doing you wrong if you've come to the conclusion that Elric is "good" by any stretch of the imagination. He is strongly motivated by eldritch passions and selfish desires (curiosity, revenge, etc.) rather than any desire to do good. He dooms friends, lovers, and allies to die, in many cases for his own selfish purposes (witness the invasion of Melnibone that he "commands").




I appreciate your insight here, as it is more in depth than what I've read from some earlier posts regarding Elric.  It does lead me to ask more questions, however.

More Wikipedia: Strombringer


> This powerful enchanted black blade is a member of a demon race that takes on the form of a sword, and as such is a force of chaos and evil. Stormbringer's edge is capable of cutting through virtually any material not protected by potent sorcery, and it can kill any unprotected human in one swing. Its most distinctive features are that it is sentient (if not sapient), with a mind and will of its own, and that it feeds upon the souls of those it kills. Elric loathes the sword but is almost helpless without the strength and vitality it confers him.
> Stormbringer’s hunger for souls is such that it frequently betrays Elric by creating a bloodlust in Elric, turning in his hands and killing friends and lovers. The cursed nature of the sword adds to Elric’s guilt and self-loathing even as he feels pleasure when the stolen lifeforce enters his body.




Is it Elric himself who commits to the Evil acts, the influence of Stormbringer or a combination of both that make him not Good. If he is conflicted he is at least Neutral in terms of Good vs. Evil.



> Elric doesn't appear to develop any hatred for the Lords of Law, actually; they tend to get a good rap from him.




Does this mean the Gods of Law are Good?  If he doesn't hate them, they must be doing something right (at least in his eyes).



> "Hell" doesn't mean the same thing in Moorcock's cosmology as in, say, the Christian; he's using the idea of Hell as a jumping-off point for the alien or feared. That said, Arioch is presented as just flat-out evil; I always felt that Moorcock really dropped the ball in consistently showing only the "bad sides" of Chaos, since he made it an enemy in every single one(?) of his Eternal Champion books.
> Chaos-forged, yes. Defined as "evil" separately from its origins: Yes.
> Not so.




If the sword is actually a lifestealing demon as described above, it's Evil.  A demon forged by Chaos! Definetly sounds like Chaos is very much like Evil to me.



> Actually no. It's more a Nietzschean rejection of "divine influence" as a damning cycle of behavior than a good-vs.-evil thing. Moreover, Elric never turns against the Lords of Law. Interestingly enough, the Chronicles of Corum end up this way as well, with the influence of both Law and Chaos banished from the world.




If Elric did not turn against the Lords of Law, did he just reject them?  A previous post suggested he turned against them (perhaps only in spirit, not actively), or at least he grew to hate all the gods. 

I apologize if I'm starting to get out to leftfield here.  I haven't read the books in at least 15 years, and i'm not sure if I even finished all of them.  From what I've been reading here, there still seems to be more similarities between Chaos & Evil, and perhaps some between Law & Good (or maybe more Neutral than Good in Elric's world).  I suppose I'll have to read the books again in order to make a proper comparison.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 4, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> I appreciate your insight here, as it is more in depth than what I've read from some earlier posts regarding Elric.  It does lead me to ask more questions, however.
> 
> More Wikipedia: Strombringer
> 
> ...


----------



## Shade (Sep 5, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I mentioned it on another board, but I wonder if we'll see any other merging based on simliarities.
> 
> orc, ogrillion, ogre, hill giant, troll, kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, etc....




They might as well.  The differences between the low-end humanoid races are far less than those between demons and devils.   :\


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Sep 21, 2007)

cincinnati reds said:
			
		

> So I guess I'm the one who likes this.
> 
> Of course, I like monotheism in my D&D too, so I suppose my taste for the mythical/divine in my games is different from most.



 Do not feel discouraged. Their move follows more closely with my homebrew than any previous edition...

But I understand why the more traditionalists among us are upset. While I think the change is really, really cool, there doesn't appear to be any really good reason for it either.


----------

