Here is one of them that I wished to bring to the forums and, hopefully, get some feedback what you guys think about it.
Among similar cases D&D tends to, almost artificially, divide concepts into two, although to me they really could be one. E.g. the separation of demons and devil into their different hierarchies and worlds. It isn't that I dislike either the Abyss or the Nine Hells. On the contrary, I very much enjoy the way they are represented but fundamentally I find there could simply be demons and subspecies thereafter; such as the Tanar'ri, Baatezu, Yogoloths, etc. I see no reason to pull them into different categories of different idealogy, but you could have them all in one soup.
Particularly in my campaign I am leaning towards a very monolithic, single authority design for the evil beings of the world. A primal entity, timeless and the very essence of evil on top, with a hierarchy of demons following beneath it, starting from arch-demons (like Grazzt and Beliel) and continuing downward to the lowest foot soldier of evil. All this would be based on one location, the infinity of the Abyss. Abyss itself, provides a wonderful framework for this because it is inherently without boundaries, layers beyond layers that I can explore and design, myriad of demon lords and minions that I can inhabit it with, and I can make them diverse across board.
For me, the Nine Hells is like a smaller copy of this world that seems... I don't know, artificially made different from the Abyss simply by idealogy, but still remains quite the same.
The Demons and Devils represent two different philosophies of Evil: the "Destroyer" Chaotic-Evil personality that is arbitrarily evil and destructive without reason or rules, and the "Dominator" Lawful-Evil approach that inflicts law at the expense of individuality, freedom, dignity, and life.
You'll almost certainly find similar beings that represent the supernatural extremes of Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and each of the various flavors of Neutral.
Similarly, now that I think of it, I've occasionally seen odd monsters that almost seem to have had no purpose beyond being been shoe-horned into the game in order to fill in similar roles in different elemental planes (air, water, fire, earth), or plant vs. animal, and so on.
I would be willing to bet that it wouldn't take much digging to turn up a popular or heavily-promoted classic TSR-era D&D version or game setting that really put a lot of work into "organizing" the D&D cosmology into a "place for everything, and everything in its place" framework, and I'm guessing it would probably have appeared at roughly the same time a lot of the direct Tolkien and Lovecraft references were painted-over with suspiciously-similar-stand-ins, and real-world pagan gods and demons were replaced with fictional fantasy beings: all represent efforts of the game designers to step away from derivative works and create their own unique brand of Fantasy that they have some control over as a layer of protection against lawsuits and copyright infringement problems from competitors.
If I'm right about that, I would bet that work would have a LOT of blatant examples of these sorts of opposing-planar-chess-sets in it, and that subsequent editions of D&D are using only a few favorite examples of these devils-vs.-demons situations, but have otherwise backed away from that structure.
Like anything else in the game, take what you like, and leave the rest behind
Unless you want to instigate a sort of dual subcommander thing: Orcus is the entity's right hand and Asmosdeus is the left. The entity uses them for different tasks but pits them against each other for pecking order. There is enmity between the two factions. But you could see them working together against a common enemy.
Unless you want to instigate a sort of dual subcommander thing: Orcus is the entity's right hand and Asmosdeus is the left. The entity uses them for different tasks but pits them against each other for pecking order. There is enmity between the two factions. But you could see them working together against a common enemy.
This sounds intriguing. The "Greater Evil" could be an Obyrinth or several/all Obyrinths which would fit the lore connecting to demons & devils
@YronimosW
I think you hit the nail on the head there I think, partially at least. The unfortunate thing is that D&D has a lot of legacy material from the old TSR-era which has always been dubious, at best, a burden that, at least imo, weighs down the seeding of new and cool ideas. 4E did bring some fresh ideas though and I particularly fell in love with the idea of a war between deities and primordial, how they first created it and then battled for the copyrights of the world.
One thing that 4E did was simplify the overly complex alignment system, which, quite as you said, created many problems with the law-chaos axis. The Nine Hells and Abyss are a direct result of that I think. Similarly for the old NE alignment, we had the Yogoloths, which never seemed to fit into anything. Now those races have been incorporated into the demon and devil races.
You're correct, there is or at least was a very similar axis with the forces of good but I don't feel it played out quite as strongly as it has for the bad guys. The good guys simply did what they do, good things and were not troubled by their slight differences in alignment. The bad guys however, have always been portrated as great opposites of each other, the embodiments of order and chaos, and in many sources the blood war has been described as the immediate result of that.
"The Demons and Devils represent two different philosophies of Evil: the "Destroyer" Chaotic-Evil personality that is arbitrarily evil and destructive without reason or rules, and the "Dominator" Lawful-Evil approach that inflicts law at the expense of individuality, freedom, dignity, and life."
Aye, this is the main justification for the differences between the demons and devils but I don't think it does a lot of justice to demons. They are often portrated as these unsophisticated, brutes without a whole lot of plans, but this is really not true imo. It takes a great deal of cunning and force of will to actually be able to take over a layer of the abyss and there have been many occasions when arch-demons have demonstrated a great deal of intelligence in their actions, both in published accessories and novels, playing much the same way as you would expect the devils to do.
Indeed to me, there really does not seem to be a clearly cut way to separate the Destroyer and the Dominator, as both devils and demons have demonstrated the capability for both, and it's really the differentiating factor that I'm looking for to justify keeping both devils and demons in my campaign.
@Calm
Aye, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the devils need truly be there and I am looking for a satisfactory way of taking them out. My purpose was mearly to invoke discussion on this topic, whether or not other people had noticed the same I had, and what approaches they have taken.
The idea you presented was an interesting one and I could very well make it work. The entity I spoke of is in fact one of the ancient primordials, representing all that which is evil, dark, and corrupt in the world. I haven't yet felt the need to be bound by the lore presented by WotC, which is actually a reason I avoid buying too many accessories, choosing instead to just take the basic concepts, like the the cosmology of the DMG and build my ideas around it.
In my lore instance, there is no Tharizdun, but the Abyss was instead created by the primordial. This makes him essentially the father of the demon race and one with authority to mold and control them, but I wanted this relationship to be much more subtle. He doesn't invoke his authority openly, as "fetch me my slippers" but rather influences them, nodging them in a direction that he wants them to go.
I could tie the Nine Hells into a similar situation, if e.g. I made Asmodeus's fall actually an outcome of the primordial's schemes.
So, thanks for the idea. I'll look into it more closely tonight.
In a way, I can understand the preservation of legacy TSR stuff in new editions of D&D: it's tough enough to keep the loyalty of the most ancient "grognards", who are to this very second arguing over whether AD&D or basic D&D or D&D 2E is better or truer to Gygax's original hand-written notes or not and foam at the mouth at the merest mention of Wizards of the Coast, without setting off an escalation of the holy wars by dropping a much-beloved bit of lore that doesn't make much sense in an updated version of the game system.
For a classical good-vs.-evil setting, I myself would simply pick and choose the devils, demons, and other outsiders that interest me, and fly the banner of general evilness over their heads together if a demonic/diabolic/hellish/abyssal political structure is necessary to the story, rather than worrying about the Law vs. Chaos backstory. It would distress a few of the purists, but I'm sure that even a segment of the purists have seen enough different campaign setting differences to not lose any sleep over a minor change like that; the rest won't be happy with anything other than their favorite edition and module. (Otherwise, I tend to lean toward a Lovecraftian approach to demons/devils in that they are alien beings, forces of nature, or laws of physics that are "evil" only in that they don't follow the rules and laws that human beings are suited to understand, in which case they bear more in common with extra-planar D&D aberrations than anything else.)
Maybe come up with a creation myth to explain the differences between the types of fiends? You could always pull the "Blue-and-Orange-Logic" card; the primary entity has a reason for creating such dramatically different types of fiends, but its reasoning is incomprehensible to us.
I think it's necessary to have the contrast between the different kinds of baddies. I picture demons, as the epitome of chaos and evil, to just be monsters frothing at the mouth and causing wanton destruction. Devils, on the other hand, are a different sort of evil, a much more insidious force. I particularly enjoyed the Fiendish Codex II for this reason, as it paints them in that sort of light. While a demon would burn a city down, a devil would whisper promises of power in the ear of its magistrates and nobility, corrupting rather than destroying. Yugoloths are distinctive; they're just as evil as demons and devils, but without any sort of conviction to any order of the universe. They exist just to be evil. While demons and devils are surrounded by hellfire and destruction and direct action, yugoloths to me are almost bleak and apathetic. They don't destroy for its own sake like demons do, but they don't have any goals or plans the way devils do. They are the inevitable evil of apathy, contempt, and disconnection.
Fiends like devils and yugoloths present you, as the DM, with an interesting way to sort of explore the nature of evil. If they all stem from one progenitor, then you can build on this theme; classic yin and yang, evil as the inverse of good. If evil is defined in one way, what is its opposite? If a demon embodies one set of principles, you can see what principles embody good as its inverse. Creatures like this let you drench your campaign in symbolism, adding another dimension to the story you're trying to tell.
The difference, according to that site, is that devils are "supernatural" beings that live outside of our world on the same plane as other angelic beings and which influence us in indirect ways in order to gain our support in their spiritual civil war, while demons live along side us in our own world and interact with us directly in every day life for the same reasons that hostile animals would (competition for nourishment and territory, for example, or using human hosts for food and shelter in a parasitic relationship.) Devils would, supposedly, be spiritual beings which have rebeled against their Creator, while demons are supposed to be far lower, physical creatures which have been permitted to rebel against man in the wake of his fall.
From that angle in game terms, evil spirits found on the Astral plane would all be devils in one form or another arrayed in war against corresponding ranks of angels and gods, while demons would be more like some form of natural, invisible Aberration... a sort of malevolent, barely-intelligent infection that thrives in unclean places, objects, and beings on the material plane.
I don't like demons as a type of elemental. Just MHO.
One early AD&D concept was the evolution of the evil soul. When an evil person died their soul was damed to be tortured and re-born as a larva. From this stage it could evolve into a Lemure (LE) or Mane (CE) {unless eaten or destroyed}. Such proto-demons and devils could continue to evolve into more powerful types of fiends. Check out the original Monster Manual for more details!
What you could do is something similar. The souls of wicked are turned into the demons and devils as reflection of their sins and transgressions. Those who used and manipulated others for their own purposes could be devils. Those who destroyed or harmed others simply for pleasure could be demons. This might help explain why your world has both demons and devils.
...
One early AD&D concept was the evolution of the evil soul. When an evil person died their soul was damed to be tortured and re-born as a larva. From this stage it could evolve into a Lemure (LE) or Mane (CE) {unless eaten or destroyed}. Such proto-demons and devils could continue to evolve into more powerful types of fiends. Check out the original Monster Manual for more details!
...
Interesting. The Lemure lived on in 3.5E as one of the lowest-level Devils, and its CE counterpart is the Dretch.
The 3.5E Monster Manual is silent about the origins of these creatures, though, and now that I think of it I don't remember any references to souls in 3.5E (perhaps D&D has in later editions decided it's best to avoid the topics of the human soul and damnation for the sake of avoiding controversy?)
Thanks for the background - I've been finding the evolution of the game over the decades since its creation interesting.
The 3.5E Monster Manual is silent about the origins of these creatures, though, and now that I think of it I don't remember any references to souls in 3.5E (perhaps D&D has in later editions decided it's best to avoid the topics of the human soul and damnation for the sake of avoiding controversy?)
3.5E avoids discussing the nature of the soul, whether we're good v. evil, tabula rasa, etc., but there are noteworthy mentions: for example, in the Fiendish Codex II, it details how people sell their souls to devils, and how those souls inevitably become devils themselves. In fact, in 3.5E, souls sold to Baator always become Lemures, as they had in previous editions. The Fiendish Codexes actually provides (possible) answers for those sorts of questions; I don't know how much of them keep with earlier iterations of the game, but they're definitely worth checking out if you haven't already.
Another cool and often over looked throw back with souls from 1E/ AD&D was that only humans, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings had souls. Elves and orcs had spirits.
The Alignment Chart should look like that if you're going to touch on the blood wars... lulz!
I've been interested in the blood wars since I first heard about them in D&D, but they never really played on it. So I made my own fluff and over the years have smoothed some of the rough edges... where basically all alignments are evil, and just derive from a different "source" of evil. Even "good" is evil, because good makes you dumb. Not necessarily stupid dumb, but good represents peace, love, joy, and what is innovative about that? They just remain docile and sit on their hands. Even law who is defined by that has a sense of duty to act in order to straighten out the universe, good doesn't. "Good" is aloof and numbing, a perfect tool to be exploited by the competent evils.
As such, it's less about alignment, and more about "feelings". With law mostly dominating over rationality and technology, chaotic as anything it wants to be, creating paradoxes, and where life and possibility comes out of it, so too can the complete degeneration of all meaning without something to control it. It was only a matter of time before good and evil were birthed into existence. Though the elements themselves, you could not claim one came before the other, as they more or less need each other to survive. It could be said this is all "evil" because it's so much suffering and effort involved, or "good" because it's so expressive and beautiful in it's tapestry, "lawful" because it makes sense, and "chaotic" because it just is... Many incarnations of the alignments exist, and are worshipped as gods, but they are just examples. Just more intune with the energy.
The class you pick could determine where you derive your energy. I would not make alignment compulsory, but rather, it's just an aura you emmit, and creates a rock, paper, scissor format for some spells. "+9 damage against evil and chaos". Warmages for example, I would derive from lawful energy. Sure, most people who'd want to become warmages just want to blow **** up, go on a rampage, and look cool... but deep down, warmage's are lawful. They do one thing very well, and you know what that thing is. The fact they manipulate elements can on some level make sense scientifically. (Not science as we know it, but then D&D is based on magic, not physics...) The point is, it has rhythem, it has familarity... Where as sorcerers would be chaotic. Every sorcerer's spell-list is different, and therefore it is unpredictable the likeness it will take on. I'd say fighter's were chaotic too if not for the fact feat trees SUCK!!!
Barbarians would be evil. Drawing from anger, displeasure, and the adrenaline of fear and the will to survive. Doesn't sound all that evil when you put it that way, but it's "negative". It uses the more primal, lower frequincy emotional spectrum, and therefore to have the rock, paper, scissor, effect... we shall call it "evil". Paladins still get to be good. High HP, immunities, bonus to saving throws... they play defensively, and thus have the certainty of life, happiness, wealth, and thus vibrate on a higher, more "positive" frequincy. (Same goes with Healers) I'm sure the classes could befit several of the four primary alignments, so they'd be able to choose their aura "color" to some extent. For magic the gathering players, the idea of "colors" is better then alignment for describing things that can be opposed without necessarily being polar opposites.
Good: Green, White, Blue.
Evil: Black, Red, Blue.
Chaotic: Red, Black, Green.
Lawful: Blue, White, Black.
Fits perfectly within magic's ally color pie. Maybe I'll do an editing of magic the gathering rules for blood wars where you can use blue or black mana in place of blue mana etc. Ally colors can derive from the same mana, might make for some interesting magic games. But back to D&D... I'm sure the different deities that take on extreme versions of the alignments have their own interests of bringing fourth MORE of their alignment to dominate the universe. A constant struggle both for survival, glory, and principle!!! I could see "neutral" as the unspoken of fifth alignment that isn't an alignment at all, but rather the abscense of alignment. Something that makes all the alignment deities confused, angry, disturbed, or whatever other emotion that can grasp to illustrate this phenomena... When alignments cancel each other out, there is nothingness left in their wake, perhaps fluff wise the mortal realm was the biproduct of all their swirving energies mingling together, and when they finally sensed and discovered the mortal world, it lacked any psychic imprint of their alignment signatures, and they saw an opportunity, a new land to call their own.
If you play Warhammer 40k, it's kind of like the chaos gods too. "Good" being Slaenish, "Evil" being Khorne, "Lawful" being Nurgle, and "Chaotic" being Tzeetch. With arch-demons of Law saying things will always be this way, nothing changes, nothing grows, stagnation, and to just give into the inevitable, and good patrons want you to give in too, but only because your acceptance and submission grants them victory and they tempt you with promises of happiness you could never begin to imagine, and chaos both simutanously rejects this and says it's all according to the very ill conceived plan for change and derp. And of course evil is just so full of hate and resentment, that it refuses to bow down, it refuses to let there be peace, order, or even change, and just wants to see the world burn!!!
Ironically, some classes would shock those who look at the alignments in such a way. Some classes would still be obvious. Hexblade to evil, knight to good, but dread necromancer would also be good. Giving life to the once dead, (even if it's a despicable, abomination of a life...) and it's defensive lich like abilities that keep the dread necromancer alive. Rangers would be evil. You haven't seen this sense nethack, but rangers derive their power from dedication to slaying a certain species. If a genocidal or at least very well prepared bigot isn't "evil", nothing is. Crusaders from Tome of Battle are actually chaotic, seeing as they themselves don't know what manuevers they will be using that day, and psionics of all sorts are lawful do to their magic being point valued, and having to do basic math, working within their power point limit. My favorite class is the warlock, and I think that would constitute as lawful. Even if warlocks are different, once you see them cast something, you know God damn well that's probably all they're going to be casting for the rest of the day. Their very limited repitore is VERY PREDICTABLE, and therefore lawful in nature. Marshal and Dragon Shaman are good classes too do to auras being intended to help out your friends, how nice of them... I think rogues should be evil, do to their trapsensing implying a sense of paranoia and mistrust, sneak attack being about exploiting people when their guard is down, and disable device sabatoging all that was worked so hard for.
Not trying to yammer on, just giving some prime examples incase you like my idea, and maybe it'll help you with yours... Your idea sure helped me think about mine more indepth... lol! And how good unfortunately has some of the more underpowered classes. But yes, think about how lawful evil doesn't just have to mean douchebag evil where they fool you with contracts and no-win situations, it can just mean predictable evil, or organized evil. A devil with OCD... Or hell, go into ancient folklore. Pouring salt and an evil spirit has to count every grain? Sure sounds lawful to me... having to place order where there was once chaos. Where as using salt or sage to "repel" an area and "cleanse" it sounds like it's warding off chaotic evil demons who are eratic and in need of "correcting" and "straightening out"... Lawful evil sees a plan through, chaotic evil changes the whole direction of the pain when they feel like it, both have their methods of spreading evil. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But I definitelly like to deviate from the boring "I'm a shady car salesman" lawful evil versus "I kill babies" chaotic evil. There's just so much more you could do with them. Hell, the best chaotic evil might not even act very evil and is confused and lacks direction. Doesn't know what the hell he wants, and acts heroically just as much as he does terrible misdeeds. Where lawful evil does the same thing, but out of a desire to make sense of the world rather then on impulse and gut feeling.
Not trying to yammer on
Too late :P