Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867324I would argue the opposite. Slaad should actually look chaotic, not stagnant orderly giant frogs, if they are supposed to be anthropomorphic personifications of chaos.

You can argue anything you like. I don't see where it says in their description that Slaad are intended to be anthropomorphic personifications of chaos. To me, they're just an alien race from Limbo. An amphibious race with special modes of movement seem ideally adapted for the chaos of Limbo. Githzerai also live there. Why aren't the githzerai expected to be chaos incarnate?

The Slaad lords, on the other hand, do look different from the other Slaad, and they are considered lesser deities of chaos. Now I would say chaos can take many forms. From the bearded anarchist with a Molotov cocktail to the dapper politician who writes laws contrary to natural law (imagine the chaos of building bridges and large buildings using trigonometry informed by the Indiana Pi bill, had that become law). One thing is for sure, though. Ssendam no doubt is one face of chaos.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867324My problem isn't with chaos demons (though I do think they could benefit from being based more on Bosch or Warhammer) but with lawful devils. Being lawful, they should share some kind of common motif like archons and modrons do.

If you're gong to use "should" then give some supporting reason why.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867324Maybe this picture of more asymmetrical entities is a better example? That's what I want for devils: regardless of how warped their body gets they should still look like they were originally designed by the same architect.

So you want Devils to have all been designed by the same architect and want them to look that way? OK. People like what they like and want what they want, but you sure haven't persuaded me that's the way it should be.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867324

Quote from: Lunamancer;867133What I meant was is just because Slaads share a common physical motif doesn't automatically imply that Demons should. That would be the symmetry I was referring to. Slaads may well be my favorite monsters from D&D. I have no problem with them sharing a common physical motif. I have a problem with the expectation that other families of extra planar creatures should.

I would argue the opposite. Slaad should actually look chaotic, not stagnant orderly giant frogs, if they are supposed to be anthropomorphic personifications of chaos. I would expect individuals to vary wildly across forms like this, this or this.

That's not arguing the opposite. Unless by "opposite" you mean "non sequitur."

Quote from: Natty Bodak;867391If you're gong to use "should" then give some supporting reason why.




So you want Devils to have all been designed by the same architect and want them to look that way? OK. People like what they like and want what they want, but you sure haven't persuaded me that's the way it should be.

That specific design is just an example by way of analogy. I am not literally suggesting devils look like that.

The definition of chaos is "complete disorder and confusion." Following that line of logic, personifications of chaos should look confusing and random. This is an example of random design: http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35300000/PMMM-Witches-puella-magi-madoka-magica-35303041-2000-2000.jpg

The definition of order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method." Following that logic, personifications of order should look like they were designed according to the same pattern. This is an example of how a shared aesthetic (in this case arrangements of vertices) still allows diversity:
http://i.imgur.com/vJEhBMG.jpg

I don't understand what is so unconvincing about my argument. It is logically consistent and self-evident. If devils are treated as lawful, rather than interchangeable with demons, then (by virtue of being literally made out of the force of law in the same way mortals are made of flesh) they should look like it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867405That specific design is just an example by way of analogy. I am not literally suggesting devils look like that.

The definition of chaos is "complete disorder and confusion." Following that line of logic, personifications of chaos should look confusing and random. This is an example of random design: http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35300000/PMMM-Witches-puella-magi-madoka-magica-35303041-2000-2000.jpg

The definition of order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method." Following that logic, personifications of order should look like they were designed according to the same pattern. This is an example of how a shared aesthetic (in this case arrangements of vertices) still allows diversity:
http://i.imgur.com/vJEhBMG.jpg

I don't understand what is so unconvincing about my argument. It is logically consistent and self-evident. If devils are treated as lawful, rather than interchangeable with demons, then (by virtue of being literally made out of the force of law in the same way mortals are made of flesh) they should look like it.

i disagree with your example being from pulla magi madoka magika i felt the designs where unified

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886Furthermore, if you didn't have the book in front of you it would be impossible to tell most demons and devils apart. They lack any kind of unifying aesthetic because the writers make things up as they go along.

If you had to redesign the art direction for demons and devils so that it is possible to tell them apart by visual identity, how would you? What sorts of motifs would you pick in order to set them apart?

Each kind of demon or devil arises from the soul of a certain sort of person who acted a certain way in life.  Their designs are based on that.  Vrock demons arise from the souls of particularly violent and wrathful people who relish chaos and bloodshed.  Coloxus demons arise from the souls of narcissistic people who caused suffering or disaster because of their self-absorption.  Each of their designs is based these characteristics.  That's how it is for Pathfinder anyway.  It has been quite a while since I ran anything in other D&D settings and my memory on such details is hazy.

Being able to tell if something is a devil or demon by looking is not a priority for me at all.  I would design them based on their natures.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867405literally made out of the force of law in the same way mortals are made of flesh

[Citation needed]

Planescape had something like that going on.  Outer planar creatures were embodiments of the alignment of the plane they came from.  The Tanar'ri (they weren't calling them demons back then) were the embodiment of evil and chaos.  What that meant exactly was a bit fuzzy.  The chaos/law dichotmoy in D&D alignments has never been terribly clear and varies from chaos being anarchy and law being order to chaos being individuality/selfishness and law being community.  

The Tanar'ri were really just demons grandfathered in from earlier editions rather than anything invented for Planescape.  They came from various sources with the Balor being an obvious lift from Tolkien with its sword and whip.  The Baatezu were Dante's Inferno themed as was D&D hell and were also grandfathered in from earlier editions.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867469Planescape had something like that going on.  Outer planar creatures were embodiments of the alignment of the plane they came from.  The Tanar'ri (they weren't calling them demons back then) were the embodiment of evil and chaos.  What that meant exactly was a bit fuzzy.  The chaos/law dichotmoy in D&D alignments has never been terribly clear and varies from chaos being anarchy and law being order to chaos being individuality/selfishness and law being community.

Right, I earlier gave an example of the bearded anarchist with the Molotov cocktail vs the politician who creates laws that contradict natural law, such as legislating the value of pi.

I've questioned before how much of alignment is intent and how much is results. You could intend to reshape society to make it more orderly in a top-down sense, but if that runs contrary to individual desires. This could lead to rebellion. And sure, you could say, "Hey, I'm the lawful one here. Look at this detailed societal structure I have. Look at this neatly organized hierarchy. You individualists who resist my change, your rebellion is causing chaos!" But it doesn't change the fact that there was peace and some semblance of order BEFORE you decided to try to make it even more orderly.

Which circles right back to the matter at hand. How do you know re-shaping devils to *look* more orderly would actually make them (or hell) more orderly? It would seem to me that having different forms and functions are very conducive to order. Why would Asmodeus and a pit fiend need to have physical features in common?

Metaphysically, order is opposed by disorder. Entropy (disorder) and Non-Entropy (or "Neg-entropy", i.e. information) dance around each other.


"Chaos" is a dynamic process composed of both order and disorder. See "dynamic system theory" for an example, and why it is distinct from both Entropy and Neg-Entropy.

OR, to put it another way:
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that "labels" are a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that metaphysical reality is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

        Reality is the original Rorschach.

This message brought to you by your friendly local DISCORDIAN SOCIETY.
-><- "We occur at random among your children." -><-

Quote from: Telarus;867543Metaphysically, order is opposed by disorder. Entropy (disorder) and Non-Entropy (or "Neg-entropy", i.e. information) dance around each other.


"Chaos" is a dynamic process composed of both order and disorder. See "dynamic system theory" for an example, and why it is distinct from both Entropy and Neg-Entropy.

OR, to put it another way:
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that "labels" are a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that metaphysical reality is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

        Reality is the original Rorschach.

This message brought to you by your friendly local DISCORDIAN SOCIETY.
-><- "We occur at random among your children." -><-

Whoa.  Heavy.

Quote from: Telarus;867543Metaphysically, order is opposed by disorder. Entropy (disorder) and Non-Entropy (or "Neg-entropy", i.e. information) dance around each other.


"Chaos" is a dynamic process composed of both order and disorder. See "dynamic system theory" for an example, and why it is distinct from both Entropy and Neg-Entropy.

OR, to put it another way:
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that "labels" are a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that metaphysical reality is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

        Reality is the original Rorschach.

This message brought to you by your friendly local DISCORDIAN SOCIETY.
-><- "We occur at random among your children." -><-

Never given much of a crap for the demon/devil divide.
In Dark Albion there's no such distinction.

In my DCC campaign there's Daemons, which are the powerful AIs that can serve as patrons, and demons, which are your run of the mill chaotic outsiders.

Personally I see no reason to have visual "demon" and "devil" tags, and wonder: Why do you want this?

The unlimited variety of forms taken by creatures of the lower planes seems to me part of their appeal as monsters, but perhaps that is somehow an "old school" view.

Quote from: Phillip;868160Personally I see no reason to have visual "demon" and "devil" tags, and wonder: Why do you want this?

The unlimited variety of forms taken by creatures of the lower planes seems to me part of their appeal as monsters, but perhaps that is somehow an "old school" view.

Why have both demons and devils when devils are demons suffering special snowflake syndrome?

It occurs to me that, even though it doesn't directly map onto the devil/demon distinction, the idea that Evil's great weakness is that it turns against itself features pretty prominently in Lord of the Rings.