In old school and old school renaissance games, there isn't much of a distinction between demons, devils and other categories of anthropomorphic personifications of evil. There may be some statement about demons being born evil and devils being fallen angels, but both ultimately serve Chaos/Evil.
Since Planescape came out, the new school games (e.g. 3.x/PF, 4e, 5e) have made attempts to distinguish between demons and devils. Demons are rapacious reavers, devils are lawyers, and daemons or whatever fill the gaps.
I never really liked the new school approach. I found it unnecessarily restrictive and ultimately unsuccessful. The former because it led to things like Pathfinder pigeonholing demons into the seven sins and daemons into causes of death; why should alignment determine that sort of thing? The latter because demons and devils and whatever still look more or less interchangeable since they don't have any overarching aesthetics, they still have hierarchies with imps at the bottom and balrogs at the top, they still fight each other over souls, etc.
I'm not saying the new school approach doesn't work, but all the attempts I've seen have been too lazy to remove the lingering similarities. I personally blame this on writers basing the monsters off alignment rather than trying to make those monsters stand out before an alignment is tacked on to justify their place in the cosmology.
What do you think?
EDIT: I am referring to the problems I mentioned beforehand. How would you address the problem of demons and devils in new school games looking and acting too similar? It's not enough to simply say they're anarchists and fascists, because that's already stated.
To illustrate this better: in Pathfinder one of the devils is a baby fly centaur and one of the demons is a man in a tuxedo with the head of a fly. If you didn't have the book in front of you, it would be easy to forget which they're supposed to be.
EDIT: To reiterate, I've no problem with making anarchist and fascist fiends into separate races. However, attempts that have been made still suffer from too much similarity. And I quote:
QuoteThroughout 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.
Furthermore, 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?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886What do you think?
I think the ferocious need some folks feel to classify/codify everything is kind of odd to me. It seems like they could vary widely depending on what culture is drawing the lines of distinction.
In my homebrew setting most supernatural creatures are spirits or possessed by spirits... some groups call them 'demons' and other see them as beneficent saints. Smarter/stronger ones are trickier to deal with... the dumb/weak ones can be used as pets.
Yeah, to tell the truth I don't differentiate among them either. I can't remember if I ever had a need to do so. In my mind demons are more wild, carefree, chaotic. While devils have a hierarchy of respect and government behind them. Think of it as the difference between ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram type of groups and Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or Soviet Russia. The latter are more organized, disciplined and have larger goals in mind and workable methods to bring them about.
I think of devils as fallen angels, who make up the hierarchy of Hell. I think of demons as creatures born of and native to Hell. I think of daemons as spirit guides of Greco-Roman sorcerers.
I really liked 4E's default cosmology in general, and specifically how it remapped devils into the divine/astral and demons into abyss as the blast radius of the Evil embedded in the primordial chaos.
The only other folks that I've found who agree with me on that point really liked 4E in general.
The intersection of "don't like 4E" and "likes 4E's cosmology" has plenty of room. Come on over. I've got chips, BBQ, and whisky.
*crickets*
Quote from: Natty Bodak;866911I really liked 4E's default cosmology in general, and specifically how it remapped devils into the divine/astral and demons into abyss as the blast radius of the Evil embedded in the primordial chaos.
The only other folks that I've found who agree with me on that point really liked 4E in general.
The intersection of "don't like 4E" and "likes 4E's cosmology" has plenty of room. Come on over. I've got chips, BBQ, and whisky.
*crickets*
Never read the game, played one session and couldn't get past the system. Perfectly willing to accept it had a good cosmology, though I've been perfectly happy with Jeff Grubb's Manual of the Planes + Planescape.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886In old school and old school renaissance games, there isn't much of a distinction between demons, devils and other categories of anthropomorphic personifications of evil. There may be some statement about demons being born evil and devils being fallen angels, but both ultimately serve Chaos/Evil.
I don't think that's really true though. In OSR revisionism where anything past White Box is "New School", sure, but originally as conceived by EGG, they were quite different.
I mean, EGG came up with Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil in the Strategic Review in Feb '76. And AFAIK, Devils never existed before that (and he just put them on the Lawful Evil axis of the included chart, I don't think they showed up until the Monster Manual).
QuoteMany questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same.
This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined.
In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil.
well to step out of TT gameing in to i little wider field of view very little iv
read / watched / played really spent any major amount of time differentiating demons and devils a few that did where pretty basic 2 that come to mind that iv seen used are 1 devil was strictly a rank within demonic society that denoted power and usually position and in
2 was only a mages term where devils could be bargained with and demons could only be subjugated by magic
To reiterate, I've no problem with making anarchist and fascist fiends into separate races. However, attempts that have been made still suffer from too much similarity. And I quote:
QuoteThroughout 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.
Furthermore, 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?
With D&D my campaign settings usually deviated from the standard cosmology enough that this stuff was completely customized on my part I would rework things like demons and devils to fit my world.
It's been forever since I read up on demons/devils in the D&D context, but I always got the impression (or a vague remembrance anyway) that Devils were Lawful Evil and Demons were Chaotic Evil. Or reversed.
Like I said, it's been a long time, but I remember the Law/Chaos axis being the defining difference between them. Unless I just made it up in my head, which is possible. :)
Quote from: TristramEvans;866913Never read the game, played one session and couldn't get past the system. Perfectly willing to accept it had a good cosmology, though I've been perfectly happy with Jeff Grubb's Manual of the Planes + Planescape.
I've never played a planar-from-the-ground-up campaign like Planescape, but I can't recall ever hearing anything bad about. I think it's all been pretty positive.
My major gripe with Great Wheel cosmology was the mapping of the outer planes to alignments. But this isn't so much a crticism of that facet of its nature. I just got tired of it after a while.
At one point at TSR there was a discussion of further differentiating the Demons and devils by making the devils even more human-looking and the demons more beastial. You see it a little in the AD&D MM.
BX did not have any demons or devils. And no. The Devil Swine doesnt count. Its a were-boar. BECMI eventually did add them. But in this case Demon was a catch-all for any immortal following Entropy if I recall correctly.
Quote from: Omega;866937At one point at TSR there was a discussion of further differentiating the Demons and devils by making the devils even more human-looking and the demons more beastial. You see it a little in the AD&D MM.
Huh. That was part of the design ethos they used in 4E.
My impression of the split beyond Law/Chaos was that in 1E, devils were generally more medieval and classical in inspiration and motifs, while demons were more pagan/fantastic. By the end of 3.x, they were largely indistinguishable and overused to the point of me being bored sick with them. :)
I have heard that they became even more over used in the Pathfinder paths, but I haven't experienced that myself.
Back in the day, I didn't like the change that was in AD&D2 or Mentzer D&D, but over time I have come to find that I would rather it was originally just handled as an expansion of the hordlings creation section in the old Dungeon Masters Guide, with some advise on creating a unique or derived background set-up for a campaign.
But, with regard to the OP...
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886In old school and old school renaissance games, there isn't much of a distinction between demons, devils and other categories of anthropomorphic personifications of evil. There may be some statement about demons being born evil and devils being fallen angels, but both ultimately serve Chaos/Evil.
Since Planescape came out, the new school games (e.g. 3.x/PF, 4e, 5e) have made attempts to distinguish between demons and devils. Demons are rapacious reavers, devils are lawyers, and daemons or whatever fill the gaps.
There was an attempt to distinguish them well before Planescape. The alignment division is a good bit older than that; demons were CE, and devils we LE. Alignment to alignment was the aesthetic. Whether or not you find that convincing in execution for every demon or devil since, well that's a whole 'nother demon-kettle of devil-fish.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886I never really liked the new school approach. I found it unnecessarily restrictive and ultimately unsuccessful. The former because it led to things like Pathfinder pigeonholing demons into the seven sins and daemons into causes of death; why should alignment determine that sort of thing? The latter because demons and devils and whatever still look more or less interchangeable since they don't have any overarching aesthetics, they still have hierarchies with imps at the bottom and balrogs at the top, they still fight each other over souls, etc.
I'm super unclear on what you mean by "the new school approach." And in my confusion, I can't see anything here that "led" to Pathfinder's approach to demons and devils. I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder, so maybe you can help connect the dots for me.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886I'm not saying the new school approach doesn't work, but all the attempts I've seen have been too lazy to remove the lingering similarities. I personally blame this on writers basing the monsters off alignment rather than trying to make those monsters stand out before an alignment is tacked on to justify their place in the cosmology.
Still confused. What does alignment have to do with devils being related to sins and demons related to death?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886What do you think?
EDIT: I am referring to the problems I mentioned beforehand. How would you address the problem of demons and devils in new school games looking and acting too similar? It's not enough to simply say they're anarchists and fascists, because that's already stated.
To illustrate this better: in Pathfinder one of the devils is a baby fly centaur and one of the demons is a man in a tuxedo with the head of a fly. If you didn't have the book in front of you, it would be easy to forget which they're supposed to be.
So are you saying you should be able to build a taxonomy of outer plane denizens based on physical characteristics? That wouldn't make much sense to me.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866925To reiterate, I've no problem with making anarchist and fascist fiends into separate races. However, attempts that have been made still suffer from too much similarity. And I quote:
QuoteThroughout 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.
Furthermore, 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.
What are you quoting? Without citation I don't know what the point is.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866925If 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?
Personally, I wouldn't bother. My take is that if there is going to be a particular aesthetic (and all along I was assuming here that you meant an aesthetic in the sense of the underlying principles of monster design, not just the visual aesthetic), with devils and demons this would be something of a metaphysical nature.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;866945But, with regard to the OP...
There was an attempt to distinguish them well before Planescape. The alignment division is a good bit older than that; demons were CE, and devils we LE. Alignment to alignment was the aesthetic. Whether or not you find that convincing in execution for every demon or devil since, well that's a whole 'nother demon-kettle of devil-fish.
I'm super unclear on what you mean by "the new school approach." And in my confusion, I can't see anything here that "led" to Pathfinder's approach to demons and devils. I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder, so maybe you can help connect the dots for me.
Still confused. What does alignment have to do with devils being related to sins and demons related to death?
So are you saying you should be able to build a taxonomy of outer plane denizens based on physical characteristics? That wouldn't make much sense to me.
What are you quoting? Without citation I don't know what the point is.
Personally, I wouldn't bother. My take is that if there is going to be a particular aesthetic (and all along I was assuming here that you meant an aesthetic in the sense of the underlying principles of monster design, not just the visual aesthetic), with devils and demons this would be something of a metaphysical nature.
My point is that if one goes to the effort of distinguishing between anarchist and fascist fiends to the point of making them different species, then they need to be visually distinct and not easily confused with one another.
Pathfinder goes to enormous length to distinguish between demons, devils and daemons. Demons personify sin, daemons personify causes of death, and devils... don't really personify anything beyond vague tyranny. (It's also arbitrary: why can't neutral or lawful evil fiends personify sin? Or lawful and chaotic fiends personify death?) The whole attempt is undermined by them sharing the imp-to-balrog ladder hierarchy, fighting over souls to increase their numbers, and the random grab bag of designs that make them look interchangeable.
Well, I don't know about all devils being lawyers. But I didn't realize the general notion that devils tend to be more cunning while demons tend to be tougher was a new school type of idea.
(Going by 1st Ed here) Devils have innate powers like charm, suggestion, and illusion. Demons do not. But all devils can be harmed by silver weapons. Demons take no damage from silver weapons (other than the weakest of demons who can be harmed by normal weapons) and they take reduced damage from attacks like fire, cold, and gas.
Sure. There are exceptions. The pit fiend, though a devil, seems tougher than all the generic type I-VI demons. On the other hand, the succubus demon is surely at least as cunning as the generic lesser and greater devils. But overall, the generalization holds well.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866959My point is that if one goes to the effort of distinguishing between anarchist and fascist fiends to the point of making them different species, then they need to be visually distinct and not easily confused with one another.
I get from this that this your preference, but I don't see any substantive argument as to why it should be true.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866959Pathfinder goes to enormous length to distinguish between demons, devils and daemons. Demons personify sin, daemons personify causes of death, and devils... don't really personify anything beyond vague tyranny. (It's also arbitrary: why can't neutral or lawful evil fiends personify sin? Or lawful and chaotic fiends personify death?) The whole attempt is undermined by them sharing the imp-to-balrog ladder hierarchy, fighting over souls to increase their numbers, and the random grab bag of designs that make them look interchangeable.
I'm not qualified to comment on Pathfinder stuff, so I nothin' there.
To each other, the differences are the most important thing in the universe, but to outsiders they're just piss-fighting over who gets to run Hell.
So, the American two-party system, basically.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;866969To each other, the differences are the most important thing in the universe, but to outsiders they're just piss-fighting over who gets to run Hell.
So, the American two-party system, basically.
JG
"Go ahead, throw your vote away!" - Kang
Quote from: Natty Bodak;866965I get from this that this your preference, but I don't see any substantive argument as to why it should be true.
Monsters families share motifs and morphology to indicate that they are related. Dragons are giant lizards with wings and breath weapons. Modrons are walking polyhedrons. Slaad are giant clawed frogs. Angels are winged humanoids. Elves are fair pointy-eared demi-humans. Drow are black elves. Eladrin are celestial fey. Guardinals are animal-headed humanoids. Formians are giant ant centaurs. All these groups have distinct, unifying visual identities.
Demons and devils have no unifying visual identity. They can only be described as a random set of chimerical creatures. This puts them in contrasts to all other monsters categorized in families.
Does that not strike you as odd? Why should demons and devils look like haphazardly stitched together assortments of random body parts?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866971Monsters families share motifs and morphology to indicate that they are related. Dragons are giant lizards with wings and breath weapons. Modrons are walking polyhedrons. Slaad are giant clawed frogs. Angels are winged humanoids. Elves are fair pointy-eared demi-humans. Drow are black elves. Eladrin are celestial fey. Guardinals are animal-headed humanoids. Formians are giant ant centaurs. All these groups have distinct, unifying visual identities.
Demons and devils have no unifying visual identity. They can only be described as a random set of chimerical creatures. This puts them in contrasts to all other monsters categorized in families.
Does that not strike you as odd? Why should demons and devils look like haphazardly stitched together assortments of random body parts?
It doesn't strike me as odd at all, no. Demons and devils are metaphysical creatures of nightmare that come from manifold mythologies, with manifold bizarre configurations, many of which are described as protean. They are grouped together, in my mind, not because they share physical phenotypes, but because they share magical & metaphysical phenotypes. I wouldn't expect a demon with a bent toward seducing people into canniblaism to look anything like a demon whose whispers of insecurities worm their way into your brain until you throw yourself off a bridge so the world isn't bothered by your sadsack existence anymore.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and defend the hordes of man-bear-pig-looking creatures created by people to fill up pages in a monster manual somewhere, while also noting that a lot of that goes on outside of the demon & devil crowds, but as long as there's something "demonic" or "devilicious" (whatever those meansin a given setting), I can overlook the man-bear-pig laziness.
I'd rather see more effort going into folks trying to figure out what representation of the demon's/devil's form would be most obviously or subtly aligned to its motivations.
But to recap, I see no reason why they have to share any physical characteristics to tie them together.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;866977It doesn't strike me as odd at all, no. Demons and devils are metaphysical creatures of nightmare that come from manifold mythologies, with manifold bizarre configurations, many of which are described as protean. They are grouped together, in my mind, not because they share physical phenotypes, but because they share magical & metaphysical phenotypes. I wouldn't expect a demon with a bent toward seducing people into canniblaism to look anything like a demon whose whispers of insecurities worm their way into your brain until you throw yourself off a bridge so the world isn't bothered by your sadsack existence anymore.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and defend the hordes of man-bear-pig-looking creatures created by people to fill up pages in a monster manual somewhere, while also noting that a lot of that goes on outside of the demon & devil crowds, but as long as there's something "demonic" or "devilicious" (whatever those meansin a given setting), I can overlook the man-bear-pig laziness.
I'd rather see more effort going into folks trying to figure out what representation of the demon's/devil's form would be most obviously or subtly aligned to its motivations.
But to recap, I see no reason why they have to share any physical characteristics to tie them together.
I don't disagree with you, but certain parts of your argument are flawed. Not because of any error in your logic, but because D&D doesn't follow that line of logic.
One: The appeal to real world mythology fails because you are selectively applying it to demons and devils but not to modrons, slaad, or angels. Slaad are personifications of pure chaos, but all look like giant frog men. Demons are better personifications of chaos than Slaad are.
Two: real world mythology doesn't distinguish between demons and devils. D&D does. If devils are supposed to be lawful, then they should look like it as modrons and archons do. Otherwise the distinction between demons and devils comes off more like, as someone said above, a painfully artificial political pissing match.
Three: if you're going to take the perfectly reasonable approach of basing a demon/devil's form on its motivations, then there is no reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the two. Let demons vary in law/chaos alignment rather than trying to shoehorn a race into every square of the alignment chart.
In other words, I take a very binary view of the distinction. Either you have demons who come in every form and alignment and origin like in real world mythology, or you have demons and devils and whatever that look and act clearly different from one another a la the difference between modrons and slaads or archons and eladrins. Anything in between only highlights the artificial nature of the distinction and that peeves me off.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078I don't disagree with you, but certain parts of your argument are flawed. Not because of any error in your logic, but because D&D doesn't follow that line of logic.
I assumed this was a commun understanding around these parts, but I suppose I should I explicitly state this: D&D is not a monolithic thing.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078One: The appeal to real world mythology fails because you are selectively applying it to demons and devils but not to modrons, slaad, or angels. Slaad are personifications of pure chaos, but all look like giant frog men. Demons are better personifications of chaos than Slaad are.
Of course I am selectively applying it to demons and devils, because the question at hand for this particular point was "why don't demons and devils have some visual aesthetic that ties them, respectively, together?" There is no real world mythology for modrons or slaad, so one can't be applied to them. As for angels, well who knows why most D&D angels are that vanilla. Even the bible has angels with 6 wings all being covered in eyes.
At any rate, just because there are creature types that
do have some sort of common visual aesthetic, that doesn't mean that all must. James Randi to the rescue here on why you "can't prove a negative."
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078Two: real world mythology doesn't distinguish between demons and devils. D&D does. If devils are supposed to be lawful, then they should look like it as modrons and archons do. Otherwise the distinction between demons and devils comes off more like, as someone said above, a painfully artificial political pissing match.
So this point has nothing to do with why devils and demons don't each have their own consistent visual aesthetic, but it is the core of your original post. Let me re-highlight that D&D is not a monolithic thing.
Some versions of D&D do have alignment as not only a primary differentiating factor, but also as essentially an origin. For example, the Great Wheel cosmology has several outer planes that are (more or less, with certain version) devoted to one of the 2-axis alignments, and each of those planes gives rise to inhabitants who personify those alignments in some fashion. The Abyss is to chaotic evil and demons, as the Nine Hells is to lawful evil and devils.
But, but, but, some versions of D&D do not do this. Take 4E's World Axis cosmology as a counterpoint. Demons (origin: elemental (meaning they are native to the Elemental Chaos,) keyword: demon) are native to the Abyss, which is a particularly evil-infested region of the Elemetal Chaos, while Devils (origin: immortal (meaning they are native to the Astral Sea), keyword: devil) are native to the Nine Hells, a particulartly evil-infested region of the Astral Sea. In this cosmology, and with the 4E take on alignment, there is a division of alignment. Demons are Chaotic Evil, while devils are Evil (there is no such thing as Lawful Evil in 4E). But the alignment thing is very much secondary differentiation. It's the origin that makes the difference.
You don't have to be saddled with the anarchist/fascist thing unless you want to be. Throw off the yoke, I say.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078Three: if you're going to take the perfectly reasonable approach of basing a demon/devil's form on its motivations, then there is no reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the two. Let demons vary in law/chaos alignment rather than trying to shoehorn a race into every square of the alignment chart.
This is true. There is no mandatory requirement to distinguish between the two, however, the World Axis cosmology gives an example of a very clear differentiation above and beyond their motivations or their alignment. And this particular cosmology has the benefit of, as you say, "not trying to shoehorn a race into every square of the alignment chart.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078In other words, I take a very binary view of the distinction. Either you have demons who come in every form and alignment and origin like in real world mythology, or you have demons and devils and whatever that look and act clearly different from one another a la the difference between modrons and slaads or archons and eladrins. Anything in between only highlights the artificial nature of the distinction and that peeves me off.
I can't argue away your feelings, but I can provide some counter-examples that show different ways of doing it that aren't plagued by the rock-and-hard-place position you seem to have put yourself in.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867078One: The appeal to real world mythology fails because you are selectively applying it to demons and devils but not to modrons, slaad, or angels. Slaad are personifications of pure chaos, but all look like giant frog men. Demons are better personifications of chaos than Slaad are.
Well, if there were a prison for all of the most vicious murderers in the multi-verse, I wouldn't expect the inmates to look anything alike. That is in no way inconsistent with there being another prison for all the hardened criminals of the frog universe. The diversity in the first prison in no way precludes everyone in the second prison looking like frog-people.
This is definitely my pet-peeve when it comes to revising RPGs. Making everything overly-symmetric.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;867093I can't argue away your feelings, but I can provide some counter-examples that show different ways of doing it that aren't plagued by the rock-and-hard-place position you seem to have put yourself in.
Quote from: Lunamancer;867101This is definitely my pet-peeve when it comes to revising RPGs. Making everything overly-symmetric.
Sharing a common motif doesn't mean that a monster family has to look bland. Random chimeras versus identical clones is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to have freakish chimeras that look related to one another.
Take a look at the Angel/Demon artwork by Wen-M (http://wen-m.deviantart.com/gallery/11369308/Angels-Demons). Despite sharing a basic humanoid body plan, those demons look fairly diverse. That is the sort of aesthetic I imagine a race of lawful evil fallen angels would share.
Take a look at this shaper concept art for Rift: Storm Legion (http://fav.me/d675xxe). While being chaotic amalgamations of body parts, these creatures still look like they are related.
BoxCrayonTales, I think we all understand that you want devils and demons to phenotypically resemble each other in the same way that D&D Dragons or Giants tend to phenotypically resemble each other.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867109Take a look at the Angel/Demon artwork by Wen-M (http://wen-m.deviantart.com/gallery/11369308/Angels-Demons). Despite sharing a basic humanoid body plan, those demons look fairly diverse. That is the sort of aesthetic I imagine a race of lawful evil fallen angels would share.
These look kind of similar. Because they are by the same artist. In the same way that almost any two Frank Frezetta drawings look kind of similar most of these drawings look similar. But Kate Henderson doesn’t look like any kind of fallen angel. She looks like a cute anime inspired girl-next-door. Now the winged humanoids tend to phenotypically resemble each other. But I can’t say I find them obviously the same type of creature e.g. Michael and Verrier don’t really seem like the same kind of being to me. Which isn’t surprising since Verrier is one of the only drawings (other than Kate) that isn’t a winged humanoid.
QuoteTake a look at this shaper concept art for Rift: Storm Legion (http://fav.me/d675xxe). While being chaotic amalgamations of body parts, these creatures still look like they are related.
Of course they look related. As I said they are all by the same artist. In addition, all the creatures have single heads mounted on a torso that is bilaterally symmetric and multiple tentacle-like appendages. Beyond the artist's style, those are common visual elements i.e. they phenotypically resemble each other. But should all demons of chaos have single heads, bileaterally symmetric torsos, and multiple tentacles? In my view that is not chaotic enough to represent all types of demons. So for me this fails as a broad representation of demon types. These are too similar.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;867109Sharing a common motif doesn't mean that a monster family has to look bland. Random chimeras versus identical clones is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to have freakish chimeras that look related to one another.
What 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.
Quote from: Bren;867129BoxCrayonTales, I think we all understand that you want devils and demons to phenotypically resemble each other in the same way that D&D Dragons or Giants tend to phenotypically resemble each other.
These look kind of similar. Because they are by the same artist. In the same way that almost any two Frank Frezetta drawings look kind of similar most of these drawings look similar. But Kate Henderson doesn’t look like any kind of fallen angel. She looks like a cute anime inspired girl-next-door. Now the winged humanoids tend to phenotypically resemble each other. But I can’t say I find them obviously the same type of creature e.g. Michael and Verrier don’t really seem like the same kind of being to me. Which isn’t surprising since Verrier is one of the only drawings (other than Kate) that isn’t a winged humanoid.
Of course they look related. As I said they are all by the same artist. In addition, all the creatures have single heads mounted on a torso that is bilaterally symmetric and multiple tentacle-like appendages. Beyond the artist's style, those are common visual elements i.e. they phenotypically resemble each other. But should all demons of chaos have single heads, bileaterally symmetric torsos, and multiple tentacles? In my view that is not chaotic enough to represent all types of demons. So for me this fails as a broad representation of demon types. These are too similar.
My problem isn't with chaos demons (though I do think they could benefit from being based more on Bosch (http://fav.me/d5ibqof) or Warhammer (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0386/08/1426015924415.jpg)) but with lawful devils. Being lawful, they should share some kind of common motif like archons and modrons do.
Maybe this picture of more asymmetrical entities (http://img13.deviantart.net/3494/i/2014/242/d/d/nephilim_concept_sheet_5_by_technorakel-d7xbhbq.jpg) 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.
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 (https://headlesshydragames.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/masterchaosic-final-justin.jpg), this (http://dwinbotp.cgsociety.org/art/artwork-painter-mine-chimerus-2d-648239) or this (http://fav.me/d2ubt8g).
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 (http://fav.me/d5ibqof) or Warhammer (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0386/08/1426015924415.jpg)) 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 (http://img13.deviantart.net/3494/i/2014/242/d/d/nephilim_concept_sheet_5_by_technorakel-d7xbhbq.jpg) 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;867324Quote 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 (https://headlesshydragames.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/masterchaosic-final-justin.jpg), this (http://dwinbotp.cgsociety.org/art/artwork-painter-mine-chimerus-2d-648239) or this (http://fav.me/d2ubt8g).
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_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." -><-
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/a6c56c7048274269d9098857f5a7cf36/tumblr_inline_nwzioyVJmw1r81zdb_500.jpg)
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.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;868351Why have both demons and devils when devils are demons suffering special snowflake syndrome?
:confused:
What does that even mean?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886What do you think?
I think the segment of the OSR centered around OD&D tends to focus on demons only and the segment of the OSR centered around AD&D 1st has both demons and deviles.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;866886EDIT: I am referring to the problems I mentioned beforehand. How would you address the problem of demons and devils in new school games looking and acting too similar? It's not enough to simply say they're anarchists and fascists, because that's already stated.
To illustrate this better: in Pathfinder one of the devils is a baby fly centaur and one of the demons is a man in a tuxedo with the head of a fly. If you didn't have the book in front of you, it would be easy to forget which they're supposed to be.
Man it sucks trying to how to make thousands of bipedal hairless monkeys all different doesn't it? Especially when they all look alike.
Seriously you are overthinking it. The difference between demons and devils are a philosphical one in how they approach evil. The fact one is fascist and the other anarchist is the point. What physical form they take is a minor issue compared to that.
The reason they feel similar is because well they are both evil. And Good vs. Evil tends to overwhelm Law vs. Chaos in people's mind. In OD&D it is common to equate Law with the good guys and Chaos with the baddies.
For me personally for the Majestic Wilderlands I don't go for a variety of races or forms. I tend to stick to a base set of races and creatures and try to introduce variety through having different cultures. And this includes the demons in my setting.
For the Majestic Wilderlands I dropped alignment. I haven't used it for ages. However there is absolute good and absolute evil in the setting. And the demons are the poster child.
At the dawn of time, gods, men, and elves were were united in a single glorious civilization centered around the First City. A faction arose that lusted after forbidden knowledge. This knowledge was forbidden because no good could come of it and using it was a form of spiritual self-harm and would cause harm to others. Above all this faction desired dominion to reshape the world to their own desire regard of the consequences.
They were discovered, some recanted, and others well rebelled. And they were successful, bringing down the First City, taking control of creation, and driving the survivors into hiding.
Eventually the surviving gods, men, and elves united and were able to defeat the demons in the Uttermost War. The Abyss was created as a prison and the demons were cast down into it.
Unfortunately before they were defeated demons took those they enslaved and twisted them creating the multitude of sentient races that exist in the present day. They also twisted the fauna of the world into the various monsters.
The creation of the Abyss allowed magic to used in the form of spell. Before the Abyss, magic could only be used through elaborate and time-consuming rituals or devices created by these rituals. But afterwards a strong will could shape magic into spells which could be cast quickly.
At one point I made a in-game document that is one culture's equivalent to the Book of Genesis (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Scroll%20of%20the%20Beginning.pdf).
The take away is not my specific vision but rather that a referee should think about the role of absolute good and evil in their setting. Then adapt the D&D monsters to that.
While you could make each race of evil somehow visual distinctive. It is an equally valid approach to treat them like any sentient races in that they all have a similar general form but are different in their cultures and interests.
I still retain the various types of OD&D demons however I completely revamp their flavor text in favor of the cosmology I developed above. Each of the type demons in my "monster and treasures" are a template of a class of demons who do similar things. For example Type VI demons are representative of a group of demon who work as captains, and elite troops for the demon lords. Type I demons (vrocks) are representative of demon altered to be aerial scouts and so on.
Some demon lords control their faction through a fascist heirarchy. Other demon lords factions are little better than a crazed mob lead by a charismatic leader. In general the larger factions are more "lawful" and the smaller factions are more "chaotic". However they are all evil with all it's attendant faults and long-term consequences.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;868351Why have both demons and devils when devils are demons suffering special snowflake syndrome?
Devils are distinct because they are specific faction of organized evil. Even in a cosmology where all evil dwells in the same underworld. Their hierarchies and organization would make them stand out. The implied setting of D&D labels that faction as devils.
In real-life there is little distinction between demons and devils. Except that devils as a category label are generally limited to the denizens of hell in the Abrahamic religions. Demon are also applied as a label to the denizens of hell but it also commonly to used as a category label for evil supernatural creatures/races of other mythologies. Babylonian mythology for example has a lot of demons.
D&D reflects this same imprecise use of the terms of devils and demons. You have to remember that when it comes to the contents of the various lists (classes, spells, items, and monsters) Arneson, Gygax, borrowed whatever that interested them or what they found to be fun. There is no rhyme or reason other than personal preferences.