4E reshaping Demons/Devils´ history

[The Giamarga]

How does it make more sense? Because they look similar? Then why not roll Pit Fiends and Balors into one. Let's scrap bugbears and call the hobgoblins.

[Cole Deschain]

No no, it's just their "new" philosophy-

The Succubus killed the Erinyes and took her stuff.

Including, apparently, alignment.

Of course, as a crabby old coot who still thinks of "Tanar'ri" and "Baatezu" (yes, I hopped aboard during TSR's PG-rated phase), I find the whole business hilariously funny.

What's next?

Dretches, Lemures and Nupperibo are all the same, give or take. Guess they become one monster, then.

Imps and Quasits? Guess they're the same

Hell, Pit Fiends and Balors are just about the same. Guess they'll merge.

Abishai and Nabassu?

Honestly...

Reason #6,732 to love the 'Loft.

They're ALL "demons" when you're an illiterate Barovian peasant.

[cure]

So we go from the rule "If it ain't broken don't fix it" to the rule "It doesn't need fixing so break it." At least it can be revisited later in some further product.

[Jester of the FoS]

Eh, small and mostly cosmetic change.
Not so much a contradiction and re-writing of the what is what.
The change from 2E to 3E made some pretty drastic changes to other monsters (kobolds from dogmen to lizards) but demons made it out unscathed (save the re-naming). Now their history is being tweaked and they're being reshuffled.

Makes for a sharper and easier to distinguish divide between devils and demons, other than the usually abstract alignment issues.

[alhoon]

Well... Succubi and Erinyes were mostly the same thing.

I kinda like the devils more humanoid vs demons more monstrous thing.
And in that concept succubi as demons sound better. Still I would prefer Succubi remaining the exception of that.

However I admit that I never used Quasits (they are like imps) or Erinyes (they are like succubi).
I think I'll keep my demons and devils intact in the 4th edition, at least until I get comfortable with the new edition. Meaning that I'll switch Succubi to demons, and ignore the 4th edition devil history.

[The Giamarga]

Eh, small and mostly cosmetic change.

Au contraire. It is a heavy retcon that wirtes several NPCs right out of D&D history. Red Shroud and Malcanthet are prominent succubi entwined in Planescape lore and the Savage Tide AP. So now they switch sides? Have never existed?

It's like saying Soth never was in Ravenloft and Death Knights don't exist.

[Bluebomber4evr]

Eh, small and mostly cosmetic change.

Au contraire. It is a heavy retcon that wirtes several NPCs right out of D&D history. Red Shroud and Malcanthet are prominent succubi entwined in Planescape lore and the Savage Tide AP. So now they switch sides? Have never existed?

It's like saying Soth never was in Ravenloft and Death Knights don't exist.

It's more extreme than that, even.

If this is a smattering of what 4th edition will bring us, then I won't even bother (not that I bothered much with 3rd edition anyway). I thought I was irritated by the changes from 2nd ed. to 3rd. like giving each campaign world its own outer planes...this is a bigger slap in the face.

I guess I'll just wait for 11th edition.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I thought I was irritated by the changes from 2nd ed. to 3rd. like giving each campaign world its own outer planes...this is a bigger slap in the face.

Hmmm... considering the new core books will have no specified "default setting", I have to wonder if they're simply doing away with the Great Wheel as a default cosmology, as well. Fiends and celestials might merely be described as "extraplanar", without tying them down to any specific, named plane-of-origin. That doesn't have to mean there isn't a Planescape anymore, only that it'll be one optional interpretation of in-game cosmology rather than the standard model.

The "fallen angels" background would then be merely a generic version of the origin-story for devils, which DMs can replace with something else in their campaigns if they see fit. If you want to revert to the Great Wheel history and arrangement, complete with the Blood War and CE demonic succubi, go ahead. If you want to redistribute the outsiders over a dozen-odd planes of your own invention (like Hellcow did when he planned out Eberron), that's fine too. If you honestly couldn't care less where they come from, you can use the "fallen angels" story, much like how DMs who didn't bother to write their homebrew worlds' origin-story for elves could always fall back on the old Gruumsh vs Corellon smackdown to account for it.

[Bluebomber4evr]

I thought I was irritated by the changes from 2nd ed. to 3rd. like giving each campaign world its own outer planes...this is a bigger slap in the face.

Hmmm... considering the new core books will have no specified "default setting", I have to wonder if they're simply doing away with the Great Wheel as a default cosmology, as well. Fiends and celestials might merely be described as "extraplanar", without tying them down to any specific, named plane-of-origin. That doesn't have to mean there isn't a Planescape anymore, only that it'll be one optional interpretation of in-game cosmology rather than the standard model.

The "fallen angels" background would then be merely a generic version of the origin-story for devils, which DMs can replace with something else in their campaigns if they see fit. If you want to revert to the Great Wheel history and arrangement, complete with the Blood War and CE demonic succubi, go ahead. If you want to redistribute the outsiders over a dozen-odd planes of your own invention (like Hellcow did when he planned out Eberron), that's fine too. If you honestly couldn't care less where they come from, you can use the "fallen angels" story, much like how DMs who didn't bother to write their homebrew worlds' origin-story for elves could always fall back on the old Gruumsh vs Corellon smackdown to account for it.

If that's the case, why even provide a backstory at all? Generic monsters don't need backstories.

To me, it's just more of WotC's mindset: "Well, we updated the game mechanics, so that means we have to update the backstory too!" Despite the fact that backstory is independent of mechanics. I felt this attitude was prevalent in the 3rd edition (i.e. change for change's sake--witness the "elf pirate" Strahd and halfling Vistani in EtCR) but the 3rd ed. changes pale in comparison to this.

I'm always open to changes in game mechanics, but there's simply no need to reinvent the wheel (no pun intended) when it comes to the "backstory" of monsters, especially if they are supposed to be generic and fit in any campaign world--the "fallen angels" stuff they're trying to pass off isn't any more or less generic than the existing backstory for devils and demons.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

If that's the case, why even provide a backstory at all? Generic monsters don't need backstories.

Possibly because most people on the street already think that "demon" and "devil" (small d) are the same thing? WotC'd need to do something to show that in D&D, they're different kinds of creature ... especially if they really are pushing the Great Wheel offstage so the "devils are from Hell, demons are from the Abyss" distinction can't be used any more. Yes, they have different alignments, but the average new player won't know what makes Lawful Evil different from Chaotic Evil until they've seen the two alignments' respective villains in action.

I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, just that this would explain the need for some non-setting-specific, non-alignment-based fluff to distinguish the two.

[Jester of the FoS]

To me, it's just more of WotC's mindset: "Well, we updated the game mechanics, so that means we have to update the backstory too!" Despite the fact that backstory is independent of mechanics. I felt this attitude was prevalent in the 3rd edition (i.e. change for change's sake--witness the "elf pirate" Strahd and halfling Vistani in EtCR) but the 3rd ed. changes pale in comparison to this.

Yes, the company itself is issuing this edict. The big sentient corporation is changing backstory. It's not one person (*coff*Rich Baker*coff*) trying to make monsters different from each other at all

I play D&D alot. And the two big differences between devils and demons are: one is chaotic and the other lawful and one is harmed by silver while the other cold iron. That's it. And the alignment never comes up in play (especially not combat) as all you know is "its evil, twack it!"

This stems from a very obvious desire to fix a problem with the monsters: i.e. no one can tell the difference between the two unless they've read all the books and memorized the monsters. Now they'll be instantly recognizable. This changes the rules.
The new backstory is just a further way to distinguish between the two. Give a motive or reason.

I really don't think this is a huge deal. There were *alot* bigger changes for many monsters in the shift from 2E to 3E and I forsee many more coming. None of them will be change for the sake of change. There is always a reason. The problem comes when we don't agree with it (i.e. halfling Vistani).

[alhoon]

I play D&D alot. And the two big differences between devils and demons are: one is chaotic and the other lawful and one is harmed by silver while the other cold iron. That's it. And the alignment never comes up in play (especially not combat) as all you know is "its evil, twack it!"

Alignment doesn't come up in play except in combat?!?
Demons have completely different methods than Devils and while they have the same long-term goals, their short-term goals are different.

I usually make up my own fiends in game, for Ravenloft and for Non-Ravenloft campaigns. My Players usually understand if the fiend they listen about is a demon or devil before they face him/her.
Of course, if the big evil wizard just chains up some fiends to guard him/use as cannonfodder then it is difficult to see the differences.

[cure]

I play D&D alot. And the two big differences between devils and demons are: one is chaotic and the other lawful and one is harmed by silver while the other cold iron. That's it. And the alignment never comes up in play (especially not combat) as all you know is "its evil, twack it!"

A run-of-the-mill encounter with disambiguated devils:

"Hello, we are devils. We are here to slay you. No, we don't want your immortal souls. That's so last millenium. No, don't expect devilish tactics. We are just Evil. We are going to kill you plain and simple. Be wholly reassured that there will be no cunning strategems, such as practiced by lawyers. Please believe us, but for god's sake don't take our word for it lest there be left hanging the implication that we are Lawful, and we desperately wouldn't want to be perceived as being that. And please do understand, for this is the most important point, that we are vulnerable to cold iron, so please don't use silver against us, for that would be mistaking us for eternally Evil demons, which would be the worst of imaginable fates for all involved. A fine day and death to you."

A run-of-the-mill encounter with disambiguated demons:

"Hello, we are demons. We are here to slay you. No, we don't want to ravish and devour the local villagers. That's so last millenium. No, don't expect demonic savagery. We are just Evil. We are going to kill you plain and simple. Be wholly reassured that there will be no cruel acts, such as practiced by sadists. Please believe us, and for god's sake do take our word for it lest there be left hanging the implication that we are Chaotic, and we desperately wouldn't want to be perceived as being that. And please do understand, for this is the most important point, that we are vulnerable to silver, so please don't use cold iron against us, for that would be mistaking us for fallen, once upon a time good devils, which would be the worst of imaginable fates for all involved. A fine day and death to you."

It kind of recalls an old Dragon cartoon, you know the one where there is a minotaur in a box with a narrow slit before his heart framed with the words: "Insert sword here for 1000 xp." A triumph of the mechanical over storytelling. But even biology often produces two or more morphologically similar species, each apt to much the same niche, yet without relation to each other. Such were the she-devils and she-demons in question, who undoubtedly hated each other all the more because of it. Rationalising paradoxes out of existence is very often no more than reducing possibilities to that very small set with which the reasoner feels comfortable. Whereas Planescape gave pride of place to the paradoxical.

[Archedius]

I know this will anger Planescape people- but I've mulled over this change and I am neutral about it- won't affect Ravenloft or Midnight much.

[Jester of the FoS]

I play D&D alot. And the two big differences between devils and demons are: one is chaotic and the other lawful and one is harmed by silver while the other cold iron. That's it. And the alignment never comes up in play (especially not combat) as all you know is "its evil, twack it!"

Alignment doesn't come up in play except in combat?!?

No. Re-read what I said. Alignment DOESN'T come up in combat. Ever. And the law/chaotic axis even less.
Unless someone has an axiomatic weapon or drops protection from chaos.

Demons have completely different methods than Devils and while they have the same long-term goals, their short-term goals are different.

Of course they do. But 90% of the time players will never know this. The minutiae and subtle plots will be lost as the details fade in the weeks between play-sessions. And, while in Ravenloft, fiends are rare beasts and big deals in every other campaign settings and game fiends run the gamut from weak fodder to epic horrors. And while some devils have massive long-term goals and epic schemes worthy or liches the CR1 beasties are typically just summoned critters or another monster to throw at the party.

I usually make up my own fiends in game, for Ravenloft and for Non-Ravenloft campaigns. My Players usually understand if the fiend they listen about is a demon or devil before they face him/her.
Of course, if the big evil wizard just chains up some fiends to guard him/use as cannonfodder then it is difficult to see the differences.

Exactly!

It kind of recalls an old Dragon cartoon, you know the one where there is a minotaur in a box with a narrow slit before his heart framed with the words: "Insert sword here for 1000 xp." A triumph of mechanical over storytelling.

If it was common enough then that Dragon (ever the bastion of cutting-edge humour that it was) was poking fun at it in Dragon Mirth why are you acting like this is new?

But even biology often produces two or more morphologically similar species, each apt to much the same niche, yet without relation to each other. Such were the she-devils and she-demons in question, who undoubtedly hated each other all the more because of it.

Biology isn't designed. Games are. You have two things that are meant to be different and, in fact, meant to be diametrically opposed. But they're physically and functionally identical save for the smallest of differences.
When re-designing a game that's something you look at. If you keep everything the same why make a new edition? Why do anything new? Why not just break out the old adventures you wrote back in jr. high/middle school and play those again?
And emphasis on the word "game", this affects the RULES as that is what the game is. They're not telling you that you can't do shared storytelling. They're making changes to the hard, crunchy rules and the monsters inhabiting it. Because we don't NEED rules describing how a demon acts or what a devil's personality is, but we do need rules describing them in combat!

Rationalising paradoxes out of existence is very often no more than reducing possibilities to that very small set with which the reasoner feels comfortable. Whereas Planescape gave pride of place to the paradoxical.

Planescape took established paradox and gave it a reason beyond "bad game design" or "lack of planning". But because one world a decade ago made the best of someone's bad decision doesn't mean modern writers should feel bound to it.

"Hello, we are devils. We are here to slay you. No, we don't want your immortal souls. That's so last millenium. No, don't expect devilish tactics. We are just Evil. We are going to kill you plain and simple. Be wholly reassured that there will be no cunning strategems, such as practiced by lawyers. Please believe us, but for god's sake don't take our word for it lest there be left hanging the implication that we are Lawful, and we desperately wouldn't want to be perceived as being that. And please do understand, for this is the most important point, that we are vulnerable to cold iron, so please don't use silver against us, for that would be mistaking us for eternally Evil demons, which would be the worst of imaginable fates for all involved. A fine day and death to you."
"Hello, we are demons. We are here to slay you. No, we don't want to ravish and devour the local villagers. That's so last millenium. No, don't expect demonic savagery. We are just Evil. We are going to kill you plain and simple. Be wholly reassured that there will be no cruel acts, such as practiced by sadists. Please believe us, and for god's sake do take our word for it lest there be left hanging the implication that we are Chaotic, and we desperately wouldn't want to be perceived as being that. And please do understand, for this is the most important point, that we are vulnerable to silver, so please don't use cold iron against us, for that would be mistaking us for fallen, once upon a time good devils, which would be the worst of imaginable fates for all involved. A fine day and death to you."

Yes... by making devils look human and demons look less they will suddenly have large bold letters in their statblocks saying:
This creature is a savage brute that must be just killed and cannot be given any role in combat other than feral monster.


It's a cosmetic change. Literally! What some monsters LOOK LIKE is being changed and shifted. The little label above their name is moving. That's it!.
And why is the backstory changing as well? Because the people making the changes are Dungeon Masters. They're writers! They're creative at heart and, even when making a cosmetic change to differentiate two similar types of monster for the sake of gameplay, they want to write tiny little novels and tell short little stories.
That's the big, dark, evil secret behind WotC's dastardly new plan. The company is partially run by DMs who like to tell stories.

I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of 4E. I'm not switching. I've bought the same darn book three times already. And bringing it out this soon is a terrible mistake. And horrible for the FLGSs. But attacking them for this when there are so many better and more valid complaints? That's just uncool.