Quote

In the real world, "demon" is synonymous with "devil." "Abyss" and "hell" have a similar relationship. D&D designers have struggled with these facts since 1977 when the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game depicted demons and devils, the Abyss and the Nine Hells. The original basis for the division was alignment. Aligned planes existed to provide a meaningful afterlife for similarly aligned characters, and a need to fill those planes with natives resulted in demons being distinct from devils. As the game evolved, the original division remained, but too many similarities persisted. The advent of 4th Edition lets us accentuate the differences between the two primary species of fiends.

 

Throughout demons' and devils' existence in the D&D game, resemblances between them have been stronger and more numerous than differences. Both species are extraplanar forces of evil that seek souls to supplement their numbers. Each breed has wretched and implike creatures at the bottom of the hierarchy and godlike archfiends at the top. Each member of both species has a wide array of similar (and often superfluous) supernatural powers. Most demons and devils are superior to members of typical PC races in every way, including incredible intelligence. Their purposes in the material world have always been similar.

 

In the original AD&D Monster Manual, Gary Gygax admitted that devils “somewhat resemble the demons both in their characteristics and abilities.” AD&D 2nd Edition kept the planar structure of the original game. Demons and devils became tanar’ri and baatezu, respectively, but little made them distinct other than their categorical names. Only a conflict called the Blood War kept them from overrunning the material world. However, this evil-on-evil fight didn’t expand the possibilities for typical D&D play. On the contrary, the Blood War brought the motivations and hierarchy of demons and devils closer together. The 3rd Edition of D&Dretained so many of 2nd Edition’s concepts that it did little to clarify the situation until the release of Fiendish Codex I. Fourth Edition changes all that.

 

In 4th Edition, the Nine Hells are an astral dominion among other deific abodes in the Astral Sea (more on that in an upcoming Design & Development column). The resident deity is Asmodeus, who as an angel in primeval times, led an army of his fellows against his celestial master and murdered that god. Although Asmodeus gained divine might from his foul deed, he and his followers also suffered their victim’s dying curse. Under the power of that malediction, all the rebellious angels twisted in form and became devils. Worse still, the murdered god’s words transformed Asmodeus's dominion into a nightmarish place and bound the newborn devils to it. To this day, devils plot to escape their prison, weaving lies and corruption to ensure their eventual freedom and to seize even greater power.

 

Asmodeus rules Hell with despotic pride, and all devils conform to his strict hierarchy or face destruction. Within the chain of command, lesser devils use whatever power they have to mimic their ultimate leader. Devils work to gain influence in the cosmos, especially among mortals in the world. They eagerly respond to any summons and readily form cleverly worded pacts. They plan and build to meet their needs, making and using all sorts of devices, tools, and weapons. A devil might be supernaturally potent, and it might possess incredible magic items, but its greatest assets are its shrewdly calculating mind and eternal patience. Devils want to impose a sort of order -- specifically theirs -- on the cosmos.

 

Not so with demons.

 

In the Abyss, which gapes like a festering wound in the landscape of the Elemental Tempest, demons teem, eternally divided among themselves simply by their insatiable lust for ruin. Legend says that the Chained God, Tharizdun, found a seed of evil in the young cosmos, and during the gods’ war with the primordials, he threw that seed into the Elemental Tempest. There, the evil seed despoiled all that came into contact with it (some say it tainted Tharizdun himself) and created the Abyss as it burned a hole in the very structure of the plane. Elemental beings that came too close to the Abyss became trapped and warped. Any desire they have turns to the longing to obliterate the gods, creation, and even one another. They became demons.

 

Most demons are savage and fearless engines of annihilation. Although sometimes driven by unspeakable yearning or by horrifying demon lords to gather in groups, demons have no real organization and no singular aim. Demons don’t negotiate, and they build nothing lasting. Most use tooth and claw rather than artificial weapons. They care little or nothing for souls. Even the mightiest demon lords manipulate other demons by using threats, direct violence, or the promise of more destruction through affiliation. Although the lords of the Abyss that veteran D&D players know and love to hate still exist, no monolithic hierarchy supports any demon’s influence. Although a demon might want to destroy another creature and take that creature’s power, success only results in the winning demon using and squandering what it has seized. Demons have no regard for the responsibilities of authority, and they care little for keeping what they acquire. They’re forces of unmaking, and a universe under them would reflect the horror that is the Abyss, if that universe survived at all.

 

What does a clearer distinction between the two major species of fiends mean for your game? If you need a devious fiend that cares about souls and works on long-term schemes, use a devil. However, wholesale slaughter, pointless suffering, and terrifying devastation call for a demon. A villain or even a player character might bargain with devils, but those who conjure demons do so only to wreak havoc on their enemies. In short, the unambiguous division of the fiends is another way 4th Edition makes the game easier to design for and to play.

Isn´t that how Demons and Devils always behaved? The second part could be directly from any previous edition, whereas the first part of the article is previous edition bashing.
What remains as substance is the changes to the great wheel, which seems to be abandoned, but the consequences to the clarification of Demons/Devils seem to be nil.

SOURCE

I think the analysis of previous editions is legitimate; it gets especially silly when you add daemons to the mix, which are the neutral evil equivalents of demons and devils: they're implied by the alignment system, but at the same time there's next-to-nothing to distinguish them from demons or devils.

If they're changing the planes setup so that there's an infinite myriad of potential worlds of whimsical adventure, as opposed to the needlessly baroque and overly nailed-down structure we've been lumbered with ever since the 1e Manual of the Planes, that's fine by me. The references to the Astral Sea and the Ethereal Tempest - which implies to me vast, chaotic, churning expanses which you can find anything in - make me hopeful.

If something like the foundations of the universe go waaaaay back to 1e, wouldn´t that be somehow, you know, like, D&D?

I never ever saw anyone complain about Devils and Demons in the pretty recent Fiendish Codices. But now?

I´m puzzled by the public reaction.

Quote from: SettembriniIf something like the foundations of the universe go waaaaay back to 1e, wouldn´t that be somehow, you know, like, D&D?

No, it would be, like, AD&D. D&D cosmology was different. Prime at the centre, surrounded by ethereal, next comes astral, elemental planes border on ethereal and astral with gates leading to the prime, there is an infinite number of outer planes that for the most part are in contact with the astral, except where you have to cross multiple outer plane boundaries to get to them.

So in some ways the inference here is that there will be a more D&D like planar structure rather than an AD&D like one. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: SettembriniIsn´t that how Demons and Devils always behaved? The second part could be directly from any previous edition,

It is, conceptually. The problem is, the execution has sucked. Various demons and devils, as written, statted and described, are not distinguishable enough in previous editions.

The problem with this article (and with many "sneak peaks" so far) is that they aren't telling us how they actually plan to do that.

Yes, I'm glad that the new designers find 3rd edition too complex and want to simplify 4th edition. That's great news. But they're not showing me any indication that they are actually doing something about it.

Yes, I'm glad that the designers recognize how crappy demons and devils have been in previous editions. But they're not showing me actual demons and devils. They're just repeating what demons and devils should be like. We already know that. We want to see how they pul it off.

Quote from: Settembriniwhereas the first part of the article is previous edition bashing.

Stating facts accurately ain't bashing. He was actually nice about it. The fact of the matter is more along the lines of: Demons and Devils in D&D fucking suck. In fact, the whole D&D cosmology seems to be some gonzo aberration coming right out of the mind of Rob Zombie.

That's besides the point. What's really annoying about all those blogs it's that they're saying all the right things, but they aren't showing any actual examples. They've alluded to having worked on the game for a couple of years, possibly longer. At this point in time, some things should already be cimented. But it doesn't look like it's the case. It looks like ideas on what they think the game should look like as opposed to how it will be. Every designer out there that has ever worked on a detailed system knows there is a vast difference between ideas and implementations.

It's all good to tell me that characters are going to be more defined, have more abilities, a wider range of level and feel differently in play, yet there will be no "sweet spot". It's also good to tell me that characters will be easier to create and that the game will be easier to prep for.

The problem with the paragraph above is that many of these ideas traditionally clash with each others. How are characters going to be mechanically more distinguishable yet easier to create at high level?

I'm not saying it can't be done. But I'd like to know. Just a little.

If they have found ways to do this, they should show 'em.
If they haven't cimented these things at this point, they should be worried. We're in late September and such a game needs not only to be designed but codified, playtested and written. Then it needs to be published.

They're not backing up any of the hype so far. That's what sucks.

Is the idea of Asmodeus actually being a god, or of devils actually being trapped in hell a new idea?

I'm interested in hearing what this "Astral Sea" is.

Quoteduring the gods’ war with the primordials

Likewise, is this new?

This is new in that the cosmology of 4th Ed. breaks from 3rd (which was really just a direct port of 2nd). The changes arn't huge, but some of it is obvious right away from the eyes of a Planescape setting wonk.

Which I really don't claim to be, my love for the setting aside.

It loses the Blood War, and the planar logistics of it, as well as gaining a tie between the celestial hosts and the lower planes. Here, Devils are dropped right into the Astral, and Demons right into the Elemental. That tells me two things: the first is that the Astral plane is going to be an outpost of Devils, where it wasn't before. The second is that the Elemental planes are going to be more fraught with Demons then ever before. This co-incides with the Points of Light thing, where the forces of order, civilization, and good are just dots in the wilderness. Themeatically, the Astral and Elemental planes were pretty much neutrally aligned with the denizens inside usually packing an alignment, but nothing as pervasive as the Abyss or Hell.

The other thing is that it doesn't look the D&D is dividing up the Outer Planes and the Astral/Ether.

My judgement? It's neat. My love for Planescape is matched only by the old 1E planar handbook which described the complex cosmology I'd come to know for D&D, but if that's what I want, I can always just port that in wholesale. And I may. But this looks different and well thought out.

Quote from: Consonant DudeYes, I'm glad that the new designers find 3rd edition too complex and want to simplify 4th edition. That's great news. But they're not showing me any indication that they are actually doing something about it.

Yeah, they talk a mean game.

If they can pull it off, I'll be duly impressed (not on this matter - I hate the direction they are going here, but other goals they have stated seem worthwhile). But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Consonant Dude, "gonzo aberration coming right out of the mind of Rob Zombie" pretty much describes what I want out of my demons, devils, daemons, demodands, slaad, etc.

I don't see much change other than trying to tie devils more closely with real world religion(fallen angels and all that).

This really goes back to Alignments and how they are perceived by gamers and the structure of the D&D(AD&D) cosmos.

Anyone with a basic understanding of how the alignments are supposed to work in D&D (and not trying to apply alignment to real world situations) should have been playing Devils (manipulative, and heartless) and Demons (chaos and destruction) this way all along, but that is expecting the majority of gamers not to be asstards, who either cannot understand how the alignment system is supposed to work (a lack of imagination) or refuse to understand it (which is the real problem and causes so many alignment flame wars).

Quote from: jrientsConsonant Dude, "gonzo aberration coming right out of the mind of Rob Zombie" pretty much describes what I want out of my demons, devils, daemons, demodands, slaad, etc.

Ding, winner.

Also, was it Asmodeus who had a moustache, goatee and black cape in the 1E MM? I like that. I want it back!

The power of D&D is that it incorporates Gonzo as well as Continuity porn at the same time. Whimsical and overly serious all go together, each being able to trace it´s line of tradition all the way back to it´s start. Realism and "Balancism" are also both represented, depending whom you ask.

D&D´s power  of horizontal integration transcends snowflakism of any kind, Pierce´s, JArcane´s and mine included.

Reading that again, I freakin' hate it. I don't hate the cosmology description itself. Actually it's pretty intriguing. It would be rockin' material for a campaign setting.

No, I hate it because this is core material and it defines too many specifics. I'm a wayback homebrewer. One thing I've always loved about D&D is giving me neat stuff to work with without defining too many specifics. In 1e, the demons and devils where there, and they were obviously bad news, but what they were doing was up to the DM. Now (much like the stupid late 2e decision to make Asmodeus an over-god), Wizards is telling me what the grand evil plan of the universe is.

Screw that. Give me a toolkit, I'll handle the plot and make the world.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadReading that again, I freakin' hate it. I don't hate the cosmology description itself. Actually it's pretty intriguing. It would be rockin' material for a campaign setting.

No, I hate it because this is core material and it defines too many specifics.

I agree. It metaplottifies stuff. Not so much the demons but the devils, with that Fallen Angels story. Which, to add insult to injury, sounds a bit WoDdy.

It´s even-numbered edition, so they planes have to get WoDdy?