The discussion has turned into an actual discussion rather than just D&D4 bashing at this point, but someone has brought up a thing I know nothing about as a complaint... Succubi, demons, and devils. In 3.5, succubi were demons. Now they're devils. He's brought up FR specifically saying that this messes with novels, etc. I'd like to come back with something along the lines of "No, see, there's a reason for the switch that's story based" but the problem is... I know next to nothing about Forgotten Realms' previous iterations, and I know NOTHING about the latest iteration of it. Other than some sort of plague screwed everything up, and it's all 100 years later than... whenever the previous FR was.
So, I don't suppose someone could give me a lore based reason for the switch (beyond "Well that's what the rules are now")? Something more detailed than "maaaaagic happens" preferably. That's assuming there is one. (Plague messed with their heads... treachery between demons and devils.... singing penguins... something.)
#2 - yes, it does 'mess with' some continuity, but FR isn't Planescape, and I always felt the cosmolgy was secondary to the world. I also always felt that Succubi should have been devils from day one, and that having both them and Erinyes was redundadant.
If you want a 'fix', you could easilly say that Fiends of Temptation are called Erinyes, and that many (but not all) Succubi (a sub-set of the Erinyes that focused on tempting males with lust) sided with the Demons during the Blood War, and since that war is now officially over, the Suucbi have been 'welcomed back' amongst their infernal brethren.
That 'fix' means both Succubi and Incubi are types of Erinyes, and others could exist as well.
As far as canon supporting your argument - good luck. This is the internet, and facts hold very little sway, especially since its not only fairly easy to fabricate them (percentages are famously mis-represented), but we are dealing with a fantasy setting in a game environment, making much of it subjective.
Like I said, I've been playing this game since the 70's, and I always felt the Succubus was in the wrong 'family'. Devils are about temptation and 'infernal pacts', and demons are about tearing through everything they see (wanton destruction). The subtler methods of the Succubus were never a good fit in the Tanar'ri camp, IMHO.
And thats from a anti-4e guy, for what it's worth. ;)
-Is continuity being ruffled? Yes, since whenever something is arbitrarily changed without an explanation, mentions of it beforehand are not incorrect. Is this case anything major, though? No, not really. Offhand, I can think of very little that has to do with Succubi in the Forgotten Realms, so a minimal of material is being invalidated (in that they aren't Demons anymore). This retcon does not produce situations in which major situations don't make any sense. Instead, it causes little annoyances in invalidating older information about them, that might not necessarily be true any longer.
In 1e/2e, Iuz (from GH) was a Cambion, and the offspring of Graz'zt. Tieflings were originally the offspring of Demons and mortals, while Cambions were the offspring of Devils and mortals (this was changed a couple of times between editions, which leads to continuity problems). However, when it was found-out that Graz'zt was Iuz's father, it caused some confusion (why wasn't he a Tiefling, then?)
However, with newer lore we now know that Graz'zt was a devil, and became a demon (or at least, lived amongst them). That establishes a precedent - Obviously where fiends are concerned, your loyalties amount to more then your lineage.
Much in the same way that Lolth is/was considered a 'Demon-Queen'. Basically, you get judged by the company you keep. ;)
Considering that all outsiders are little more then energy taken physical form, their malleable nature lends itself to this ever-shifting cosmological model.
As to what changes because of the shift? Depends on how important the distinction between LE and CE is in terms of the history of Impiltur. A succubi (Sonnelin, or something like that, can't recall the spelling offhand) played a freaking huge role in the history of that particular realm... how an alignment shift for her would matter though I couldn't speak to. Best to ask George Krashos how badly that muxes things up, if at all. Given her close alliance with Eltab though, it could mess things up quite a bit in terms of setting logic, unless he changed as well somewhere along the way.
During the turmoil that shook the planes, the Erinyes heeded the call of the divine and left the Nine Hells to serve the deities(mostly Lawful Evil [4E jargon: "Evil"] ones).
Needing new tempters/infiltrators now that his old ones had departed, Asmodeus, noticing the increase in infighting and savagery in the Abyss' denizens (as a result of the Blood War's so-called end), tempts Malcanthet (Queen of Succubi) with an offer to switch sides.
With the demons no longer needing her kin, she accepts. The succubi migrate en masse to Baator, where they are made Baatezu. Malcanthet becomes consort to Asmodeus (in my homebrew, she replaces Levistus [who has freed himself and has fled]).
the Abyss is more boring now with this change
you could say that they were spies revoked with the end the war
'Simplified' is the new kewl buzz-word. :D
Also Succubi have not "replaced" Erinyes as these creatures still exist and are still in the Nine Hells. They are in MM2 and have appropriately had their role readjusted to something more like the original Greek myth that they are from. This is yet another good decision in 4E to change back the theme of Devils/Daemons to things more appropriate to what they are. They're also good changes that make more sense with the actual myths and origins of both creatures as well, so a double win.
the Abyss is more boring now with this change
They never made sense being in the daemon camp. Daemons have always been the "stormtroopers" of DnD villains and are not meant to be particularly subtle (albeit, they do have some creatures capable of infiltration and similar from a military point of view). In addition the entire theme of the succubus fits into the general idea of what Devils do much better than Daemons.
If you think the removal of one daemon makes the abyss boring you were missing the entire point (or variety) of daemons to begin with.
:D
Daemon princes like Demogorgon are both insidious and extremely powerful, capable of keeping lesser servants in line and bending them to their will. This goes all the way up the chain, but lesser daemons in general are pretty mindless with no self direction of their own. This is generally what I mean by "management". Daemons are not entirely idiots and only someone who hasn't read anything about them in 4E fluff would claim this. They are controlled and ruled by power alone, without sufficient power you cannot keep together any group of daemons for any period of time. Hence why they are absolute representations of chaos and not just funny looking devils.
btw ''daemon'' is a word for NE fiends, not CE
only the lowest three types are stupid, PCs would hardly ever meet Demogorgon
You've never heard of Savage Tide obviously, perhaps you should because it was an incredibly solid adventure path that showed daemons acting in a way that was clearly not stupid. I don't believe a succubus played a key role, if any in the entire adventure path now I think about it.
But you should especially check out the final encounter, which is also really well designed and was one heck of a great final showdown.
for me 4e fluff is pathetic obviously intended for players who just want to roll dice
If only you could make a coherent and logical argument instead of plainly trollish statements like this one.
Then again, I can write my own fluff and I appreciate having more monsters and less things that I often have to re-write to suit my campaigns/worlds myself. Basics are easy to expand on and I find this works very well with 4E. Plus I get more critters and less potential crap. A stat block is always useful, fluff isn't for me.
btw ''daemon'' is a word for NE fiends, not CE
Daemon is an older spelling of Demon. The distinction between Yugoloths/Tanar'ri by using the two different spellings was always somewhat ridiculous given that daemon is the same word as demon (I've never spelled the word "demon" that way). I don't believe that 4E, given that it has no such alignment as "NE" anymore actually holds to this convention either now. Another entirely logical change.
Forgotten realms (One with Bulders Gate right? Misc and Boo? :D )
Its nice and is the only one i kinda like. Ebboron or w/e it never intrusted me.
But in all honestly you can point out that 3.0/3.5 Messed up Novals and such that was made to represent AD&D and such.
That and there books / Novals. people make storys however they want.
4E Is Hella better in my option then 3E. but then again AD&D was better then 3E in my option. Alot less people whined and complained back then ...
only the lowest three types are stupid, PCs would hardly ever meet Demogorgon...
You can meet him in Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal.:D
And beat him senseless as well...
You should try fighting Demogorgon in BG2 with one of the difficulty enhancement mods like TuTu.
Now that was a challenge.
You've never heard of Savage Tide obviously, perhaps you should because it was an incredibly solid adventure path that showed daemons acting in a way that was clearly not stupid. I don't believe a succubus played a key role, if any in the entire adventure path now I think about it.
We have the magazines, they seem decent, I hardly ever use official adventures cause they can't never be that good, except for some ideas here and there. But these are 3e adventures, I was talking about 4e hack and slash style. The majority of Savage Tide authors work for Paizo now.
Then again, I can write my own fluff and I appreciate having more monsters and less things that I often have to re-write to suit my campaigns/worlds myself. Basics are easy to expand on and I find this works very well with 4E. Plus I get more critters and less potential crap. A stat block is always useful, fluff isn't for me.
I see, for me it's the opposite, we don't need no rules, after a few years of playing it's not hard to come up with stats for PC's opponents automatically, flavor and new good ideas that is more time consuming. I've seen many people claim they invent their own fluff, when they post it, it's awful. The designers realize it's hard to invent new quality lore, just look at 4e FRCS where every old plot is triggered to fill their lack of imagination, at the same time they point out that the rules are that you need. They say that you don't need rules for roleplaying, but you need flavor. I find buying books for new feats and powers pretty pathetic. Monster Manuals should be like Pathfinder's Classic Monsters Revisited not like in 4e where you have a few lines of lore, not a clue how a particular creature lives and should interact with the PCs.
We have the magazines, they seem decent, I hardly ever use official adventures cause they can't never be that good, except for some ideas here and there. But these are 3e adventures, I was talking about 4e hack and slash style.
This is still nonsense. Players in 4E are still likely to encounter Demogorgon because 4E Epic tier is set up precisely to fight incredibly high level threats like Orcus, Demogorgon and others. Have you ever seen or played 4E at epic levels?
I've seen many people claim they invent their own fluff, when they post it, it's awful.
Funny, I've seen many people claim they can invent their own rules and when they post them they're plain awful :P
The designers realize it's hard to invent new quality lore, just look at 4e FRCS
I can point out the entire first run of 3rd edition and the numerous gigantic problems with mechanics and balance to show how making decent balanced rules isn't anywhere near as easy as you think.
This is still nonsense. Players in 4E are still likely to encounter Demogorgon because 4E Epic tier is set up precisely to fight incredibly high level threats like Orcus, Demogorgon and others. Have you ever seen or played 4E at epic levels?
no, I can imagine probably, how does that matter
Funny, I've seen many people claim they can invent their own rules and when they post them they're plain awful :P
the rules that we use took much less time to create, and it was much easier than developing the homebrew world despite the world contains many elements from the D&D settings and the fantasy books, unique, new, good ideas are not in abundance these days, they are much more valuable than some basic mathematical system
I realize that the beginner players need a reliable system, just saying, personally, to me 95 % of 4e books is completely useless, not only that they have to fill everything with rules but everything you meet is presented as something to be killed, e.g. what happened with dryads, or look at MM2, only one creature is of good alignment. 3e was a step of in the wrong direction with bunch of useless feats and PrCs, but still there was some ''meat'' left.
I can point out the entire first run of 3rd edition and the numerous gigantic problems with mechanics and balance to show how making decent balanced rules isn't anywhere near as easy as you think.
Never had problems with the 3e balance, maybe cause it wasn't really relevant beside the roleplaying. I know that the Character Optimization people came up with some crazy stuff, why would someone bother with this ****, a waste of life. We changed the system only cause we wanted much more option for PCs, with feat trees and skills. Anyway, unbalance is always more fun than balance, I wouldn't mind some hidden balance, underneath the rules, but in 4e the classes are noticeably too alike, that's pretty boring.
no, I can imagine probably, how does that matter
Because players have encountered Demogorgon in 2E (Baldurs Gate), 3E (Savage Tide) and in 4E at Epic play encountering epic level threats like Demogorgon is what they are in the MM precisely for (the "adventure path" that Wizards has been publishing since H1 is going down to a confrontation with Orcus at this rate, so it's certainly not implausible).
Have you forgot your own argument already from earlier in the thread?
the rules that we use took much less time to create
The fluff that we use took much less time to create.
and it was much easier than developing the homebrew world
And it was much easier than developing the entire ruleset.
I realize that the beginner players need a reliable system
I realise that new writers without their own ideas need their own fluff written for them.
just saying, personally, to me 95 % of 4e books is completely useless
Just saying, personally, to me 95% of 3e books was completely useless because they were filled with irrelevant fluff and often crappy rules as well.
not only that they have to fill everything with rules but everything you meet is presented as something to be killed
Not only that they have to fill everything with crappy fluff, but everything you meet was written in stone instead of the DM deciding how it interacts with his world and creatures within HIS world.
Never had problems with the 3e balance
There is no question that 3E wasn't inherently imbalanced. 3.5 was a lot better in many ways, but it merely exchanged the imbalanced parts from 3rd for new ones in many cases unfortunately.
Anyway, unbalance is always more fun than balance
No it's not.
What about the incubi? There's a lot (maybe not, but more) info on the females, but what about the males?
-Don't know. Presumably, they're in the same boat.
Of course, they're used to being outcasts. :P
As for the 4e rules, I heard it described at at an LGS recently as "a PG version of Grand Theft Auto". I thought that pretty-much summed it up nicely. Aside from a few cinematic scenes, all you do is kill stuff.
After several hours, they and their men always got a confession, and gave the 'remains' (they never survived the questioning) back to the parents.
All sanctioned and approved by the Church, mind you. One has to root-out all of that hidden evil, you know.
I guess some things never change.
Thats why I consider myself an Agnostic - I believe in the divine... just not the rights of mortal men to decide what is and what is not divine. God gave us free will (and intelligence) to make those decisions for ourselves. When someone starts telling you what is right and wrong, thats when evil festers.
On topic? I suppose... we are discussing fiends that seduce people by offering them something that appears to be good...
I encountered D&D in the mid-nineties and thus AD&D. At that time, Planescape made kept a distinct difference between the succubi and the erinyes (of which there were only 300 about any given time). And their existence was explained fairly well too, i.e. as the "other way" of getting souls et al into the Abyss or the Hells to power them both and all that. No problem in that respect. The more 3E went on, the more changes crept in, marilith couldn't polymorph any longer, alu-fiends were edited out to a single sentence. Yet, more demons and devils were brought in, of late you have the more powerful lilitu demons (i.e. the "cool" version of the succubi) and the brachina devils ("pleasure devils", not just "cool" versions of the erinyes). All the latter swept away, the demons toned down to chaotic XP-giving rabble ... ach well ...
All the latter swept away, the demons toned down to chaotic XP-giving rabble ... ach well ...
Better than being simply filled with crappy carbon copies for some unknown need to make sure Daemons were symmetrical with Devils (which always irked me). They are now entirely different, as they should be because they are not the same. So they do not need to have carbon copies of the others concepts (and Erinyes being given back their actual mythological origin is a grand improvement). There is no equivalent to a succubus now, because there shouldn't be equivalents between them in any way as it simply fails to make coherent sense.
One of these things isn't like the other anymore. This is a drastic improvement to me.
Better than being simply filled with crappy carbon copies for some unknown need to make sure Daemons were symmetrical with Devils (which always irked me). They are now entirely different, as they should be because they are not the same. So they do not need to have carbon copies of the others concepts (and Erinyes being given back their actual mythological origin is a grand improvement). There is no equivalent to a succubus now, because there shouldn't be equivalents between them in any way as it simply fails to make coherent sense.
One of these things isn't like the other anymore. This is a drastic improvement to me.
I always figured that, given the nature of the Blood War, a certain amount of symmetry was fairly logical in that it was move, counter-move, and tactic, counter-tactic. One side sees the benefit of a certain way of doing things, and if the method is successful, the other side would move to imitate, if only to deny the other side resources through competition. Admittedly some of the naming conventions were a bit odd, but the symmetry itself always struck me as fairly logical in its approach.
Glasya's affeliation with Asmodeus might be used to explain the transistion storywise. The allegiance of the succubi is flighty though, and they can be seen cavorting power even in demonic politics.
-Yugoloth were/are Neutral Evil.
They are also demons in 4E now, they have abandoned the former 3E spelling convention in MM2 and MotP (Which never made sense anyway as Daemon = Demon in spelling). When you talk specifically about Yugoloths in 4E terms, you just state they are Yugoloths.
Please do keep up :P I'll be retaining my British spelling :P
One side sees the benefit of a certain way of doing things, and if the method is successful, the other side would move to imitate, if only to deny the other side resources through competition
Except one side embodies pure chaos and the other doesn't; they can both accomplish similar goals but their methods could be utterly different. They've always been too similar to me and in fact, I still think they are in some ways. This has been improved, but there are still some annoying parallels left. It always reminded me of playing some kind of RTS, where both sides were supposed to be very different but the game designers couldn't be bothered thinking of how to make sides both unique. They started off well with some creatures and then ran out of ideas. So they just started copying directly one creature from the other, then copying the same bloody creatures again within the same race and then making a copy of that in the other. It just got beyond ridiculous and completely defeated the point of what the two things were supposed to be at their core.
I've also never ever bought this argument. It inherently assumes that they view tactics, strategy and overall military goals the same way as one another. Something that has never made sense to me given they are supposed to be fundamentally different, not just doing exactly the same bloody things as one another.
Thats right - the 4e model of Fiends and their interconnectivity is much closer to my own version then any previous one.
Fiends are Fiends - they are like political parties. You 'hang' with the group that have similar goals and aesthetics, but other then that, there really is no 'sub-races'.
My own take is that anything NOT native to the prime-material is really just composed of energy, and takes-on a physical form that mirrors what is within. If an outsider starts to think and act more like a different type of outsider, it will begin to resemble one. Thats how angels become devils (or in rare cases, vice-versa). The appearance without mirrors the spirit within.
Ergo, the various groups of fiends (and celestials) have always been more like 'clubs' to me, rather then anything 'racial'. This concept alleviates the need for arguments like "is Asmodeus a devil or a god? Is Lolth a Demon?" They are both whatever they are in the mood to be, and have sufficient 'power' to claim (in other words, if your willing to grant spells to followers, you can make that claim). It also means that a being can belong to more then one group at the same time (a'la Graz'zt) without causing any lore conundrums.
I'm hoping by 5e they will have finally gotten the cosmology right - they are getting very close now. ;)
I may catch flak for this from my fellow 'grognards'... but I never liked the concept of the Bloodwar, and am glad they finally got rid of it
I've never liked it either, except as backstory. I like that it happened, but I like the idea that if it's happening or not is something I can decide. Opens many plot elements.
*HiFive*
They are also demons in 4E now, they have abandoned the former 3E spelling convention in MM2 and MotP (Which never made sense anyway as Daemon = Demon in spelling). When you talk specifically about Yugoloths in 4E terms, you just state they are Yugoloths.
Please do keep up :P I'll be retaining my British spelling :P
-British spelling or not, Daemons in D&D are (were) Yugoloth- and are (were) Neutral Evil- something separate from Chaotic Evil Demons in the past. Daemons were never embodiments of Chaotic Evilness. They are (were) embodiments of Neutral Evilness. Are you purposely trying to play with me head? I don't need to stress!
-British spelling or not, Daemons in D&D
Demon in DnD now is a term that refers to both things formerly identified as Yugoloths and Tanar'ri. There is no more distinction between "Daemon" and "Demon" as Yugoloths are now Demons or more specifically Yugoloths when you need to be specific. See MM2 and Manual of the Planes.
But on an aside, it is asinine that Yugoloths have been thrown into the Abyss somehow. That does irritate me so I gave them back their home plane, which they managed to establish out of the elemental chaos by sheer force of will. They are mercenaries in terms of daemons and work for anyone (more like their original blood war fluff).
-Which is why I was using both present and past tenses.
However, it is no longer correct to assert that daemons are Yugoloths, because they are now demons and are from the elemental chaos (although again, this doesn't strictly make any sense but given the arrangement of alignments in 4E there is no Neutral Evil and hence, nowhere for them to really go as they reduced the number of planes also). What they were is not so significant as what they are now, so continual corrections are unnecessary as they are no longer actually true.
What they were is not so significant as what they are now, so continual corrections are unnecessary as they are no longer actually true.
That's a wrong statement. There's people that don't play 4E and read this boards. I'm sure LK had those people in mind.
Trying to keep 4e lore consistent with past edition lore is NOT something that the designers even bother to attempt, and while we may be able to 'patch' some stuff, for the most part its beyond fixing.
Assume the 4e Toril exists in a completely different continuity then the 1e/2e/3e continuity, and just let it go.
When were Yugoloths referred to as Daemons? Don't recall ever reading that one anywhere... probably what I get for not bothering with the demon/devil books for 3.x I guess.
Throughout 3.X. They weren't in 2nd edition IIRC (but that was too long ago and I always called them fiends actually). 3rd edition changed them all back to their original names (quite triumphantly), but I think they got stuck with things like Yugoloths and chose the alternative British spelling arbitrarily (which has always annoyed me, so I am naturally pleased to see it die).
Of course, it's more annoying that they have randomly become the Abyss' new inhabitants. Nothing that a few sentences in my campaign notes doesn't fix easily however :P
2e= Yugoloth
3e= Yugoloth
4e= Demon
Better than being simply filled with crappy carbon copies for some unknown need to make sure Daemons were symmetrical with Devils (which always irked me). They are now entirely different, as they should be because they are not the same. So they do not need to have carbon copies of the others concepts (and Erinyes being given back their actual mythological origin is a grand improvement). There is no equivalent to a succubus now, because there shouldn't be equivalents between them in any way as it simply fails to make coherent sense.
One of these things isn't like the other anymore. This is a drastic improvement to me.
you ever read The Faces of Evil or The Blood War?
you ever read The Faces of Evil or The Blood War?
Yes, but even this didn't really do much to help my opinion of them effectively carbon copying concepts for utterly no significant reason. At the moment, Daemons have no real symmetry as they formerly did with Devils. Devils that were carbon copies of Daemons (and actually, to a degree vice versa) have been altered to not be. Also, 3rd edition changed a lot of some of the better aspects of these books back with their changes to cosmology (minding, every edition has had strengths and weaknesses with regards to its cosmology).
The only thing that irritates me at the moment is Yugoloths deciding they were actually Tanar'ri for some reason in 4E (I haven't quite worked out how that happened). But again, I'm willing to live with this if they are not going to go and just directly copy every single daemon into a devil (or vice versa) as they have in previous editions. This is now I think of it, probably because 4E pits the astral dominions where the Gods live (which include Devils) against the elemental chaos where the Primordials come from as its core cosmology. Yugoloths, which always fancied themselves as the actual masters of the bloodwar until they united all fiends to go and stomp on the Gods ended up being close enough to Daemons they got thrown into the Abyss with them.
So to speak.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of 'The Great Wheel' cosmology - I think Gygax was a friggin' genius! Buuuuuut... I don't think enough thought was put into Demons and Devils.
First off, mythologicallly, they are really one and the same, at least in Judaeo-Christian beliefs. If we want to find the differences, we must go further afield, and examine the Oriental Oni and the Vedic Rakshasa - both very beastial in manner and form. In most older religions, Fiends are depicted in just such a manner, and it isn't until later monotheistic traditions do we start to see fiends appearing as very human manipulators and corruptors.
This is how I have always pictured it being, and it was one of the few things about the original design that really irked me (I ALWAYS felt succubi should have been devils). Ergo, this is one of those 4e design decisions I can really get behind. Despite my love of the Planescape setting and Great Wheel Cosmology, I do like many of the new concepts 4e has brought to the table in regards to the planer structure.
To be honest, if it wasn't for the total abortion 4eFR turned out to be, I probably would have taken 4e rules with a grain of salt and jumped onto the bandwagon. I don't really care what rules I use, so long as my players are having a good time.
PEOPLE Roleplay... NOT rules. As Gary Gygax was famed for saying... "you don't even need the rules". ;)
Tanar'ri and baatezu appear bestial just as much as the oriental fiends. They are creatures of pure spirit, it's a matter of mortal senses, if some of them appear ''human'' to mortals it's just how mortals perceive some of their traits. Vedic fiends also look human very often, as far as I know, where do you see such a large difference ?
"you don't even need the rules".
Agreed, that's what I said earlier in the thread, we don't need 4e rules at all, but we always need new inspiring lore and ideas that are now missing more than ever.
Yes, but even this didn't really do much to help my opinion of them effectively carbon copying concepts for utterly no significant reason. At the moment, Daemons have no real symmetry as they formerly did with Devils. Devils that were carbon copies of Daemons (and actually, to a degree vice versa) have been altered to not be. Also, 3rd edition changed a lot of some of the better aspects of these books back with their changes to cosmology (minding, every edition has had strengths and weaknesses with regards to its cosmology).
I don't know, I never seen them that similar, tanar'ri are of infinite variety and of course that the baatezu had to adapt somewhat. Except succubus-erinyes what other copies are there?
The only thing that irritates me at the moment is Yugoloths deciding they were actually Tanar'ri for some reason in 4E (I haven't quite worked out how that happened). But again, I'm willing to live with this if they are not going to go and just directly copy every single daemon into a devil (or vice versa) as they have in previous editions. This is now I think of it, probably because 4E pits the astral dominions where the Gods live (which include Devils) against the elemental chaos where the Primordials come from as its core cosmology. Yugoloths, which always fancied themselves as the actual masters of the bloodwar until they united all fiends to go and stomp on the Gods ended up being close enough to Daemons they got thrown into the Abyss with them.
So to speak.
ok, personally I see this one axis primordials-gods much more symmetrical and monolithic than before.
Now for yugoloths, one example, look at 4e nycaloth, this is their complete lore:
Arcana DC 24: Nycademons are nicknamed "sky demons" for their tendency to swoop down and grab their enemies, carrying them high into the sky and releasing them to fall to their deaths.
Arcana DC 29: Nycademons put great stock in their physical superiority over their foes. This belief makes them overconfident when facing enemies that
don't immediately show signs of power and hesitant when facing enemies that show great strength.
how is that better than the old nycaloths-infiltrators/assassins, this is crap, even a bit unusual than other nycaloths, the Trio Nefarious, wouldn't ever destroy Myth Drannor with this ****.
I use my own simplified wheel, with only one main plane for every alignment (and the alignment thing is another 4e decision that blows chunks). I may decide to mix the elements together as they have, or keep them seperate, or have some combination of both (perhaps something like a cyclotronic effect - with various 'pure elements' being "spun off" into seperate and distinct layers). Not sure about that... but my wheel remains intact, whatever edition I play in.`
Fiends
I've always pictured Demons being 'massive engines of destruction', and devils as being the "old Scratch" variety, getting mortals to sign infernal contracts. Nothing from D&D, mind you... just the way I've always seperated the two in my mind (and obviously, others must have saw it that well as well). Now... that doesn't mean a devil can't be a demon, or vice-versa... in my cosmology what a creature is is really depedent on its motives and outlook. If an outsider takes a different job (as Lucifer did), then it becomes that thing - the various types of fiends and celectials, to me, are really just job descriptions (and how mortals perceive them).
That fits very well with Oriental thinking - the Oni serve the Celestial bureaucracy, and even though they tend to be evil when left ot their own devices, they still perform good deeds when commanded to do so (and every once-in-a-great-while, when not commended to do so). Ergo, An Oni is usually considered a demon, but occasionally function as devil, or even a Celestial. In Vedic traditions, the Rakshasa are pictured beastial, and normally quite evil... and yet there was at least one that was good (Ravana's own brother Vibhishana), and they still (usually) adhered to the gods demands (much like the Oriental Oni).
As for the names - I just picture the 'Primes' calling them Demons and Devils (and Dæmons), which has religious significance, but Planer-types and well-travelled primes (Planeswalkers) would know the dark of it, and use the correct appelations. In the Great Wheel, folks are just as likely to trade with Fiends and give Celestials the cold shoulder, even if they themselves tend toward good. They don't apply all the religious mumbo-jumbo to the various Outsider races.
Agreed, that's what I said earlier in the thread, we don't need 4e rules at all, but we always need new inspiring lore and ideas that are now missing more than ever.
While I have found a few things in the setting itself (not the 4e rules, now) that I have liked (The Warlock Knights and the Eminenece of Araunt), I consider much of it useless drivel (the Abolethic Sovereignty).
I have to say, I find 4th edition to have much 'leaner pickins' then any previous edition when I go mining for ideas.
I didn't say I agree with all of the 4e planer decisions - I hate that the Abyss got flushed into the Elemental Malstrom.
I use my own simplified wheel, with only one main plane for every alignment (and the alignment thing is another 4e decision that blows chunks). I may decide to mix the elements together as they have, or keep them seperate, or have some combination of both (perhaps something like a cyclotronic effect - with various 'pure elements' being "spun off" into seperate and distinct layers). Not sure about that... but my wheel remains intact, whatever edition I play in.`
Fiends
I've always pictured Demons being 'massive engines of destruction', and devils as being the "old Scratch" varirety, getting mortals to sign infernal contratcs. Nothing from D&D, mind you... jst the way I've always seperated the two in my mind. Now... that doesn't mean a devil can't be a demon, or vice-versa... in my cosmology what a creature is is really depedent on its motives and outlook. If an outsider takes a different job (as Lucifer did), then it becomes that thing - the various types of fiends and celectials, to me, are really just job descripions (and how mortals perceive them).
That fits very well with Orienatl thinking - the Oni serve the Celestial bureaucracy, and even though they tend to be evil when left ot their own devices, they still perform good deeds when commanded to do so (and every once-in-a-great-while, when not commended to do so). Ergo, An Oni is usually considered a demon, but occasionally function as devil, or even a Celestial. In Vedic traditions, the Rakshasa are pictured beastial, and normally quite evil... and yet there was at least one that was good (Ravana's own brother Vibhishana), and they still (usually) adhered to the gods demands (much like the Oriental Oni).
As for the names - I just picture the 'Primes' calling them Demons and Devils (and Dæmons), which has religious significance, but Planer-types and well-travelled primes (Planeswalkers) would know the dark of it, and use the correct appelations. In the Great Wheel, folks are just as likely to trade with Fiends and give Celestials the cold shoulder, even if they themselves tend toward good. They don't apply all the religious mumbo-jumbo to the various Outsider races.
While I have found a few things in the setting itself (not the 4e rules, now) that I have liked (The Warlock Knights and the Eminenece of Araunt), I consider much of it useless drivel (the Abolethic Sovereignty).
I have to say, I find 4th edition to have much 'leaner pickins' then any previous edition when I go mining for ideas.
Let's put it this way? Who do you think would be more effective in seducing you to do evil, Cthulhu or Morrigan Aensland (baring seafood sexual fetishes) ? Which might explain how Devils are humanoid and Demons as Bestial.
Just think about it...
There is a scene at the end, as the 'evil one' escapes, where he slowly changes and looks less and less human, growing horns and taking on a beastial aspect.
THAT is how I picture it all working.
Demons, Devils, Daemons... whatever... all have that scarey and other-worldy look, which is in reality just the way our poor mortal minds are able to procces what we are seeing. When a powerful outsider focuses on appearing 'normal' to a certain being, then it appears so... and can appear differently to several people present (a succubus will look like THE most alluring member of a person's race). The various Ordials (my own new term for powerful outsiders) don't actually use illusions to accomplish this - it is more of a psionic thing (you see what they want you to see).
So yeah... when a devil decides "the jig is up", and it is found-out, it could very well grow into a disgusting abominaion from the pit of the Nine Hells, because it is not bothering to mask it's identity any longer.
If you think of their outward appearances as being 'fluid', then all that matters is what they are doing, and THAT is what decides their appearance to mortals. Outsiders don't just follow their alignments, they ARE their alignments.
I've always pictured Demons being 'massive engines of destruction', and devils as being the "old Scratch" variety, getting mortals to sign infernal contracts.
I've developed the exact same idea. If Daemons are capable of having the same brains as Devils and are effectively infinite (which they are), there is no reason why they shouldn't have already destroyed just about everyone logically. Tactics, subtlety and being capable of generating mortal soul energy by different means has always been the purview of Devils to me.
Daemons rip down your door, butcher everyone within sight and drag you off to the Abyss without asking. They have almost infinite numbers, but don't have the ability to command as effectively as Devils can. When they do mass for an attack against something they are like a crushing tidal wave of force, almost unstoppable but not disciplined or specific enough.
This is how I consolidated the many years of stalemate in the bloodwar with how these things actually worked. Daemons can never strike the final blow, even with their superior numbers because their army discipline disintegrates (being entirely controlled by whoever is most powerful at the time is a horrible way of managing an army), while the Devils just lack the numbers rather than the ability to finish off the Daemons.
I don't know, I never seen them that similar, tanar'ri are of infinite variety and of course that the baatezu had to adapt somewhat. Except succubus-erinyes what other copies are there?
I've always felt Balors and Pit Fiends were too similar, among others.
Ironically, the addition of many Yugoloths to the ranks of Demons has in fact diversified demons quite a bit away from devils. Most of the copies are actually gone now in 4E though, which is part of my entire point.
how is that better than the old nycaloths-infiltrators/assassins
Daemons in 4E seem to be taking the route of being murdering engines of chaotic destruction (although it's certainly true more powerful daemons can still accomplish such goals when required). But again, these are daemons now and Yugoloths actually don't strictly exist anymore in 4E now I consider it. So they fit the general Daemon profile of being a force of pure chaos and destruction.
Returning to your original paragraph however:
Personally I prefer tanar'ri and baatezu to demons and devils and to distance them from judeo-christian mythology pretty far.
Which is perfectly fine and I think that's an interesting approach as well.
Not because it's blasphemous, but I never considered the christian mythology to be interesting, it's too ''mundane''. I know that you like to have a judeo-christian planes with Satan, Lucifer, Asmodeus and one God above all.
Actually I wrote Satan/Lucifer out specifically (but I kept Asmodeus). I also hate the concept of an overgod like Ao with an intense passion.
Tanar'ri and baatezu appear bestial just as much as the oriental fiends. They are creatures of pure spirit, it's a matter of mortal senses, if some of them appear ''human'' to mortals it's just how mortals perceive some of their traits. Vedic fiends also look human very often, as far as I know, where do you see such a large difference ?
I see the difference entirely boiling down to origin. Devils are former Angels, not beings forged from the pure chaos of the elemental Abyss. As former Angels I expect Devils to have traits that Daemons should not share, because their origin, methods and design is (or should be) entirely different. Daemons should look as odd and purely bestial as possible, while Devils should even in a corrupted sort of way still look somewhat appealing (having been formerly angels). Twisted yes, given that they have been made that way through untold millennia of warfare with daemons - but they should not be similar.
I've always made Daemons "stormtroopers" and Devils more manipulative. Daemons have no requirement or need for stealth, at least when operating on a military scale. They can insidiously infiltrate a region or area under the control of their most powerful leaders (Demogorgon, Orcus and high ranking daemons like Balors and Mariliths), but once they actually accomplish this and can freely get their reinforcements the floodgates open. When you have a daemon problem you have a massive daemon problem. When daemons breach the material plane, only vastly superior tactics and bravery stand a chance of holding back what is effectively like a tidal wave.
On the other hand, devils are more long term and don't need to see immediate bloody destruction to accomplish their goals. They would prefer to subvert and coerce those in power into their sway, then have a war fought in proxy for them. This avoids them having to commit forces they don't always have available and fits more with their angelic heritage as well. It also differentiates them not just in tactics but mindset from daemons. Daemons seek absolutely nothing except complete destruction, whereas devils actually have an interest in ruling and controlling.
demon - 1387, from L. dæmon "spirit," from Gk. daimon (gen. daimonos) "lesser god, guiding spirit, tutelary deity," (sometimes including souls of the dead), used (with daimonion) in Christian Gk. translations and Vulgate for "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Jewish authors earlier had employed the Gk. word in this sense, using it to render shedim "lords, idols" in the Septuagint, and Matt. viii.31 has daimones, translated as deofol in O.E., feend or deuil in M.E. The original mythological sense is sometimes written dæmon for purposes of distinction. The Demon of Socrates (1387) was a daimonion, a "divine principle or inward oracle." His accusers, and later the Church Fathers, however, represented this otherwise. The Demon Star (1895) is Beta Persei (in Ar. Algol "the Demon") so called because it visibly varies in brightness every three days. Fem. form demoness first attested 1638. Demonic is from 1662; demonize is from 1821
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=demon&searchmode=none
On a FR sidenote, Countess Sarya, the fey'ri and all, are/were also known as the Daemonfey ... with (AFAIK) no yugoloth in sight. (They are probably best described in Cloak & Dagger and Hellgate Keep.
(BTW, have the marilith of 4E regained their AD&D polymorph ability?)
(BTW, have the marilith of 4E regained their AD&D polymorph ability?)
They don't have shapechange on their stat block, but in 4E outside of combat monsters are assumed to do anything they like and you can easily allow them to shapechange if required to retain a disguise (as is often the case with Mariliths). I believe the entry for Gold Dragons mentions they are prone to polymorphing themselves to spend time hidden among humans, but there is no mechanic on their stat block as it simply isn't required. If you wanted them to do so, you just can.
They don't have shapechange on their stat block, but in 4E outside of combat monsters are assumed to do anything they like and you can easily allow them to shapechange if required to retain a disguise (as is often the case with Mariliths). I believe the entry for Gold Dragons mentions they are prone to polymorphing themselves to spend time hidden among humans, but there is no mechanic on their stat block as it simply isn't required. If you wanted them to do so, you just can.
Dear me. That last sentence will open a can of worms ...
Dear me. That last sentence will open a can of worms ...
Not really. Most creatures stats represent their ability to fight during combat and the powers/abilities most relevant to it. Outside of combat if a DM requires something to act a certain way for certain reasons (like being able to polymorph into a humanoid shape if required) you can just have them do so.
4E doesn't bother simulating all aspects of a creature anymore. Things like being able to cast rituals, certain requirements like being able to polymorph and similar are entirely up to the DMs discretion. Mariliths in one of my campaigns do indeed polymorph, but I haven't bothered giving them any mechanics as it's simply not required.
Edit: Also bear in mind 4E lacks 3Es terrible mechanics for PCs to shift into monsters. So a PC can't shift into a monster and then declare they have a bunch of random powers. It's entirely up to the DM to decide how monsters act and what they spend their time doing outside of combat; which is pretty much what I've been doing for nigh on 13 years anyway.
Not really. Most creatures stats represent their ability to fight during combat and the powers/abilities most relevant to it. Outside of combat if a DM requires something to act a certain way for certain reasons (like being able to polymorph into a humanoid shape if required) you can just have them do so.
4E doesn't bother simulating all aspects of a creature anymore. Things like being able to cast rituals, certain requirements like being able to polymorph and similar are entirely up to the DMs discretion. Mariliths in one of my campaigns do indeed polymorph, but I haven't bothered giving them any mechanics as it's simply not required.
Then why do Dryads and Succubi have their illusion and polymorph powers?
Then why do Dryads and Succubi have their illusion and polymorph powers?
Maybe those are their most important aspects?
Anyway, I think I'll have a look in my good old Planescape Monstrous Manual and take them from there, with a few slight changes. All 3E or PF, of course.Then why do Dryads and Succubi have their illusion and polymorph powers?
Actually that is probably because they are assumed to use these abilities in combat, so have their powers represented on their stat blocks. There are creatures that can in fact change shape, which do not have any ability (again, I point out Gold Dragons). The examples given in the MM are all minor actions for mostly specific creatures. I also think for those creatures (and Lycanthropes) is more important that they have that ability represented on their stack block than other creatures.
But again, if the DM wants a creature to do so they can.
I just changed the stats for the dryads in my Monster Manual. Now it's a polymorph effect that allows them to take the shape they had in 3E and gave them their chaotic good alignment back. (And changed demons to immortals, succubi to demons, devils to lawful evil etc.) That's the beauty of the changes of 4E, you can take a pencil and change a lot back.
The only problem I have is the lack of the old archons and angels of the seven heavens.:P
Perhaps similar to the non-evil Succubi from the Dancing Gods series of novel?
Thoughts?
Here's a question. Sune and Sharess seem to be the type to have Succubus, turn to the forces of Good. My question is do you think the goddesses transform the devils into some kind of angelic devils instead?
Perhaps similar to the non-evil Succubi from the Dancing Gods series of novel?
Thoughts?
Funny a few days ago I had the idea of a tiefling (quarter-succubus) bard/paladin heartwarder of Sune. :D
I don't think that it is necessary to change the appearance of succubi. They can polymorph into any medium form they like. Even though that could be a problem when they are recongnised through magical means. Still I don't think that the gods make something like that specifically. There was once a story of a succubus paladin and she didn't get anything like that either.:D
Funny a few days ago I had the idea of a tiefling (quarter-succubus) bard/paladin heartwarder of Sune. :D
I don't think that it is necessary to change the appearance of succubi. They can polymorph into any medium form they like. Even though that could be a problem when they are recongnised through magical means. Still I don't think that the gods make something like that specifically. There was once a story of a succubus paladin and she didn't get anything like that either.:D
Doesn't mean that such goddesses might not make a specialized or more powerful Succubi based creature. You had the Lilitu (Spelling?), which was a power enhanced Succubi to corrupt churches in 3.5 edition.
Changing powers from life drain to something more useful for the forces of good might be interesting for an altered version good Succubi.
It also gives the Succubi something to work for when joining the good side.
Here's a question. Sune and Sharess seem to be the type to have Succubus, turn to the forces of Good. My question is do you think the goddesses transform the devils into some kind of angelic devils instead?
Perhaps similar to the non-evil Succubi from the Dancing Gods series of novel?
Thoughts?
they have/create unique types of celestials/outsiders, e.g. Lady Sensates (can be found here http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/monsters.html)
Alu-fiends are like half-fiends, of course, but there's a precedent.
Sharess's entry in Powers & Pantheons mentions that she "shows her favour through the presence of... ...a few (very rare) nonevil alu-fiends who act in accordance with her philosophy of life". So basically they serve her in some capacity.
Alu-fiends are like half-fiends, of course, but there's a precedent.
The was an article in a Dragon Magazine mentioning wee jas taking a sucubus and making her a herald of sorts and the sububus in LN intead of CE. there's also an old retored article somewhere around here of a ucubus pali. Whitch I totally dig as a pali of Sune.
The was an article in a Dragon Magazine mentioning wee jas taking a sucubus and making her a herald of sorts and the sububus in LN intead of CE. there's also an old retored article somewhere around here of a ucubus pali. Whitch I totally dig as a pali of Sune.
Easier now then in 3.5 since 4th Paladins can be any alignment not just LG.
Easier now then in 3.5 since 4th Paladins can be any alignment not just LG.
please don't blaspheme. :P
Wasn't one of the books presenting a template or PrC for fiends turning good? Redeemed somethings? ... well, after checking the book myself, it is the sanctified creature template listed in the Book of Exalted Deeds. That'll give you your good red dragon, or good lilitu ... and coming to think of it, a certain scimitar-wielder could well have seen that template too.
-Sanctified, or mass murder of innocents? You be the judge...
they have/create unique types of celestials/outsiders, e.g. Lady Sensates (can be found here http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/monsters.html)
The link is broken. Please delete the round bracket at the end.
Wasn't one of the books presenting a template or PrC for fiends turning good? Redeemed somethings? ... well, after checking the book myself, it is the sanctified creature template listed in the Book of Exalted Deeds. That'll give you your good red dragon, or good lilitu ... and coming to think of it, a certain scimitar-wielder could well have seen that template too.
I think it works with every thing BUT outsiders tho....
Of course it works on outsiders... re-read it, nothing in the spell or the template says anything of the kind, quite the opposite actually with the template.
Are you sure? I think there's an exception for outsiders with the evil subtype under "Creating a Sanctified Creature".
The exception was simply that the subtypes they had, evil and/or (baatezu (devil), tanar'ri (demon), or yugoloth) are lost, and they gained the good subtype. Otherwise, it functioned normally.
I just checked I can be added any living creature BUT Outsider with the evil sub type so HA! :P
A risen anything is pretty rare. And well they should be. ;)
Speak for youself. My Rod of wonderous Power Rise up Every Time :P
-And it all fits, with a thread about Succubi. Ody, was your Paladin tempted?
The link is broken. Please delete the round bracket at the end.
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/monsters.html
-Nice...
-And it all fits, with a thread about Succubi. Ody, was your Paladin tempted?
In Game? No. But I was, as Stigg so "Horribly below belt" comment implied.
Isn't that what got you in your current predicament? :P ;)
"..... You know what? I hate you...
-Church
(Red vs. Blue, Season one):P
:D
Unless there's a pretty female involved, in which case it might be a d2...
Weenies... real men use d4's. :D
Unless there's a pretty female involved, in which case it might be a d2...
Range Touch
Save:none :P