Do you think Demons are less interesting antagonists than Devils?

[Unoriginal]

Browsing this forum, I often get the impression that people often consider chaotic beings, especially chaotic evil ones, to be nothing but lolrandum cardboard cutouts, one-dimensional slaughterers or uncompromising crazies one cannot work with, while lawful evil beings are more often thought as more "complex" or more "deep" individuals.

In particular, it seems to me like there is a big stereotype of Demons being exclusively short-sighted, beast-like brutes with no subtlety or capacity to handle their own emotions, to say nothing of rational thought, while Devils are thought as distant masterminds who are above such things as feelings or petty desires... despite this not being really accurate to the way they're portrayed in the various books.

So, my questions are: do you think it's true there is a tendency to see Demons and Devils like that? Do you think that Demons are less interesting antagonists than Devils? Have you used or seen used the Fiends in a way different than those stereotypes?

[JellyPooga]

I think there's definitely a trend (and rightly so) towards demons being less than subtle and 5ed has supported this somewhat with the Succubus moving from the ranks of the Tanaari to a generic NE Fiend. Having said that, this doesn't make them any less complex or interesting as villains. Many, if not most, demons are still smarter and more charismatic than your average human and should be played as such. As immortal beings they should also be viewing time on a different scale to mortals, even long-lived ones like Elves; a Demon can and should be capable of long-term planning and those plans can and should have results on catastrophic, even cataclysmic scale (at least for the "big-boy" demons). Even a lowly Quasit is capable of influencing the likes of princes and kings into seemingly logical actions that result in war between Houses or nations.

[Gryndle]

I think it really depends on what you are going for: in the short term, demons are engines of pure destruction and chaos; but as creatures of pure chaos, I cant grasp them being long-term strategic thinkers.
Devils on the other hand, can be awesome in both short term campaign themes and in the longterm, as they are almost always thinking long-term strategy.
Not that I'm dismissing a demons intelligence, they just tend to think more along the lines of instant gratification, bloodlust and don't tend to play well with others.
For me its kinda like what do I want to pit the players against, a wolverine-like enemy (demons) or a batman-like adversary (devils)

[jaappleton]

Demons make for an exciting battle.

Devils make for an intriguing war.

[JackPhoenix]

Advantage of a demon horde instead of a devil legion is that you can actually win against the former: it's usually held together only by the power and fear of it's master, and if you manage to remove the master, the horde will tear itself apart. Sure, you'll still end up with a horde of demons, but they are disorganised and weakened. With devils, you can remove the commander (and not just through combat, perhaps even through subterfuge to make its superior replace it), but, well, it'll just be replaced and the legion will continue its work without a pause.

Also, demons are better for not breaking versimilitude in CaS game... if you invade demon fortress, you may murder them one room at a time, because each demon will only care that it's got new playthings here. Devils have procedures, they should sound the alarm and throw the whole fortress' worth of enemies at you.

And sometimes, the players aren't interested in backstage politics and intrigue, and just want to slaughter an army of monsters... demons work perfectly fine for that.

[Findulidas]

Reading about the stronger demons I get the impression that any successful demon is not only a pure force of evil, but also very cunning and does infact think ahead. Not as much as devils but there is still atleast some of that. Personally I like to have some of the oppressive eldritch demon stuff in my campaigns.

[Cybren]

I think demons are more interesting than devils, but I also think the blood war is incredibly boring, that the omnipotent chessmaster antagonist is tired and rote, and that D&D even bothering to split demons and devils is incredibly pedantic.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't think it has anything to do with being unable to plan ahead, most demons probably plan ahead (at least to their next meal, potentially years or more for smart and powerful ones), and depending on the demon instant gratification could be anywhere from next week to in six months time.

True, most high level devils likely plan decades to millennia ahead (with contingencies and flexibility built in with the higher level ones), but to the average campaign the difference between 'has plans for the next year' and 'has plans for the next decade' is negligible.

No, to me the most important difference is the organisation. A demon is likely acting on their own with the minions it can force into serving it (and those minion's minions). A devil has access to their minions, and if needed can go to their superiors and try to get more resources assigned, such as if a bunch of pesky heroes turn up. Maybe request that the correct infernal ministry eliminates them so they can get back on building the infrastructure to cause a kingdom to sell their souls. If the PCs become strong enough to influence multiple projects then they might find that Baator becomes very persistent in hunting them down.

Because what's more scary, a warlord or a manager?

[Unoriginal]

I think it really depends on what you are going for: in the short term, demons are engines of pure destruction and chaos; but as creatures of pure chaos, I cant grasp them being long-term strategic thinkers.
Devils on the other hand, can be awesome in both short term campaign themes and in the longterm, as they are almost always thinking long-term strategy.
Not that I'm dismissing a demons intelligence, they just tend to think more along the lines of instant gratification, bloodlust and don't tend to play well with others.
For me its kinda like what do I want to pit the players against, a wolverine-like enemy (demons) or a batman-like adversary (devils)

Except that demons are just as capable of being long-term strategic thinkers than devils, and as a whole they're not more prone to pure destruction than they are to oppression, corruption, or the like (individual demons are a different story), while devils are known to not always think long term or commit error in judgements due to arrogance, emotional impulse or simply their own sadistic dispositions.

The Demon Lord Graz'zt is one of the most notorious schemers of D&D, and the Demon Lord Baphomet is known to trick many people into unwittingly becoming his servants, while Levistus, the Archduke of Stygia, murdered Asmodeus's wife basically on his doorstep for nothing more than a bruised ego.



Advantage of a demon horde instead of a devil legion is that you can actually win against the former: it's usually held together only by the power and fear of it's master, and if you manage to remove the master, the horde will tear itself apart. Sure, you'll still end up with a horde of demons, but they are disorganised and weakened. With devils, you can remove the commander (and not just through combat, perhaps even through subterfuge to make its superior replace it), but, well, it'll just be replaced and the legion will continue its work without a pause.

That's not true. Remove the leader of a demon horde or a devil legion, and in both case the second most powerful or skilled of the bunch will take over, with them often having to assert their dominance over their rivals first. Demons aren't stupid, one of them is not going to risk their skin fighting other demons unless they think they can win, and most of them are aware of their own powers relative to others.

The only difference is that the new leader of a demon horde will probably have to spend some time cracking some skulls when someone says "why should we listen to you?" until they're recognized as leader, while the new leader of a devil legion will be promoted according to the chain of command and then spend some time avoiding assassinations, duels of might and other traps until they've established they are good enough to survive the typical attempts.


Also, demons are better for not breaking versimilitude in CaS game... if you invade demon fortress, you may murder them one room at a time, because each demon will only care that it's got new playthings here. Devils have procedures, they should sound the alarm and throw the whole fortress' worth of enemies at you.

Devils aren't gregarious either. If a devil hears that there is intruders in sectors D-4, C-6 and C-9, they'd go something like "Darbuzi is the leader of the D-4 team, I hate him and I hope he dies. It would make me look good if the one in charge of C-6 failed, so no help form him either. On the other hand, I'm certain I can have Alioktigar, who's in charge of C-9, pay me back if I do him a favor now."



And sometimes, the players aren't interested in backstage politics and intrigue, and just want to slaughter an army of monsters... demons work perfectly fine for that.

Devils also have armies of monsters.

[Findulidas]

I think demons are more interesting than devils, but I also think the blood war is incredibly boring, that the omnipotent chessmaster antagonist is tired and rote, and that D&D even bothering to split demons and devils is incredibly pedantic.

I think I agree. I honestly think its bad to have them split because it seems to imply all demons are just pure chaotic with no intelligence and devils are all just planning and no emotion. Both are really boring in a way and no demon could ever get anything done. Seems to me that they are always somewhere in between. Specially now when alignments are less important. Atleast thats how I do it.

I also think that dnd suffers a bit from the obsessive compulsive behavior to always have all monsters in brackets. There is great value in not having something explained and defined clearly (atleast to the players) so that there is more mystery and threat.

[Darth Ultron]

It is kind of hard to talk about things in such broad strokes.

Even worse in most published D&D they stick to ''demons'' more often then not, just to avoid the problems using the word ''devil''. And published books are all over the place with how they treat demons and devils....but that is a good thing for chaotic creatures, and really a good thing for fiction in all.

I think each can be interesting in their own ways....two sides of evil.

[DanInStreatham]

I think the interesting difference between demons and devils as villains is that the devil has an internal conflict between betrayal and faith/honesty that the demon doesn't have. So the personality of a devil is innately more sympathetic than the personality of a demon, which is that of a sociopath (however intelligent). This also leads to more angles to dealing with a devil: pact, diplomacy, temporary alliance, respect, friendship?

Basically there is more human empathy to a devil's character than to a demon's, typically (there will always be exceptions, many of which have been mentioned).

[mgshamster]

I think the stereotype comes from two things:

1) Out of the Abyss doesn't show the demons as creatures who plan ahead too much. This is kind of an unfair statement, as the Demon Lords were all ripped from their homes to go to the underdark based on a spell.

But even then, several of the Demon Lords all has solid plans. Zuggtmoy instantly saw an advantage with the Auromycos and started creating wedding plans. Graz'zt started influencing Hillsfar with long term plans to gain control over the surface world. Juiblex started to take over Blingdenstone, Yeenaghu gained control of the maze, and even Fraz-Urb'luu had plans to escape the entire underdark altogether by creating a magical barrier against the spell (which failed and he ended up trapped in a gem).

All of the had plans - their plans just got screwed up by pesky PCs and the fact that they had to compete with other Demon Lords.

Much like certain world leaders, they thrive in the chaos and love to sow confusion so they can rise with in it. If people are confused and focusing on Issue Y, then they're not paying attention to him and his plans.

The issue is that the book didn't point this out - you had to read through it and infer it.

2) Demons were downgraded in power in 5e. So we're devils, but we've had the chance to give a good hard look at demons in 5e due to OotA. Devils haven't made a showing yet.

Due to this, people haven't looked at devils and still have their preconceived notions about how they are from previous editions. Manipulative, powerful, long term planners and organizers. But people have looked at demons and see the power downgrade and not-obvious plans (or rather don't see) and conclude that demons aren't as good as devils.

It just takes a bit of a mind shift to refocus and recognize that demons can be just as strong and just as cunning as devils. The difference is that a devil will gain power and influence by contracts and agreements (which they will twist to their favor as best they can), while a demon will gain power by sowing chaos and confusion, keep people guessing and twisting, and then force others into service. The ultimate gaslighter.

And damn - if I had thought of this when I ran OotA, I could have made my campaign so much better. Ah well, at least my players still loved it.

[Unoriginal]

. Not as much as devils but there is still atleast some of that.

That's a pretty unfair statement. Several high-level demons are known to pull schemes with methods similar to the ones Asmodeus uses, and succeed just as well.




Because what's more scary, a warlord or a manager?

A warlord who isn't a manager is a dead warlord.


I think the interesting difference between demons and devils as villains is that the devil has an internal conflict between betrayal and faith/honesty that the demon doesn't have.

I don't really get what you're talking about. Devils are never portrayed as particularly internally conflicted. At best they tend to respect their engagements to the letter while searching for loopholes to win.



So the personality of a devil is innately more sympathetic than the personality of a demon, which is that of a sociopath (however intelligent).

Uh, Devils are just as often sociopathic as Demons are.


This also leads to more angles to dealing with a devil: pact, diplomacy, temporary alliance, respect, friendship?

You can try that with both demons and devils, but none of those will stop a fiend from shoving you under the bus if it's worth it.



Basically there is more human empathy to a devil's character than to a demon's, typically (there will always be exceptions, many of which have been mentioned).

Devils are generally sadistic and merciless monsters who enjoy and take great care in making others suffer. I don't see how they have human empathy.

[Naanomi]

I like yugoloth myself...

[Cybren]

I like yugoloth myself...

I dunno a shonen about a card game? Sounds ridiculous. No one would watch it. What's next, one about tennis?

[Unoriginal]

I like yugoloth myself...

Yugoloth are way too underused.

Dunno what's about them, but I don't think I've ever heard a DM using them significantly.

[Anonymouswizard]

A warlord who isn't a manager is a dead warlord.

Sort of taking me a bit too literally there, what I was saying is that to me the hierarchy of devils and slightly greater tendency towards not betraying makes them more interesting to me.

When you deal with a devil there's a significantly greater chance that they're either not the architect of the scheme (although they'll alter it to their own ends) or they've got the backing of someone higher up. That there are some devils who are just managers, who like being trusted by someone else to enact their plans. There are devils who betray, but also devils who are loyal (the same with demons, although I tend to assume devils are a bit more loyal on average). If the devil is weak enough to actually be in charge of implementing the scheme then they're probably fairly low down in the scale, certainly not an executive.

So manager in a different sense, sorry for the confusion.

[Millstone85]

A warlord who isn't a manager is a dead warlord.But isn't that an inherently Lawful belief? Picture a devil saying "Them damn anarchists became a farce the moment they banded under a leader, and now even their leader has to think like an accountant, ha!".

And yes, devils have their own paradox. Each of them is like a boiler, a layer of hard discipline barely containing the rage inside. A demon would describe it as a devil's true self under the iron mask.

But I think most of us would consider the devil more relatable in that regard.

[Vaz]

Mariliths are among the most interesting opponents, as are Pit Fiends.

However, both lower tiers are kind of crap.

[Nifft]

Browsing this forum, I often get the impression that people often consider chaotic beings, especially chaotic evil ones, to be nothing but lolrandum cardboard cutouts, one-dimensional slaughterers or uncompromising crazies one cannot work with, while lawful evil beings are more often thought as more "complex" or more "deep" individuals.

In particular, it seems to me like there is a big stereotype of Demons being exclusively short-sighted, beast-like brutes with no subtlety or capacity to handle their own emotions, to say nothing of rational thought, while Devils are thought as distant masterminds who are above such things as feelings or petty desires... despite this not being really accurate to the way they're portrayed in the various books.

So, my questions are: do you think it's true there is a tendency to see Demons and Devils like that? Do you think that Demons are less interesting antagonists than Devils? Have you used or seen used the Fiends in a way different than those stereotypes?

There have certainly been D&D authors who saw demons as less cunning & interesting than devils, and IMHO those authors did the game a disservice.

What I did in one of my settings:

Chaotic Evil includes the riotous striving of life to adapt & improve. This was evoked by the 3.0e supernatural abilities of Demons: a Vrock can cause vines to grow on you; a Succubus can become pregnant; the Bebelith's eating habits hint that there's an actual ecosystem in the Abyss. Their abilities are targeted to disable and capture people rather than kill them.

Demons are about corruption, specifically about corrupting the living. They want to alter you. They want to augment you. They want to use you as a living incubator for their new pets.

A world conquered by demons is a verdant and deadly wilderness, through which the arch-demons hunt.


Lawful Evil includes the preference for death before disobedience. This was evoked by the 3.0e spell-like abilities of Devils: many had animate dead, for example. This was changed in 3.5e.

Devils are about domination. They have a mild preference for physical purity, but it's not a big deal -- they'll burn out your blemishes over time. They have an absolute need for control, though: if you can't serve them competently in life, they'll get adequate service from your re-animated corpse.

A world conquered by devils is a barren wasteland, on which a few factions battle amongst themselves for dominance, their skeletal armies marching in perfect cadence.


Orcus - The Prince of the Undead seems like a contradiction of demonic themes, until you realize that he had the audacity to corrupt undeath itself, making necromantic horrors which can reproduce in a mockery of life. His creations include ghouls, ghasts, wights, and vampires. He embraces the demonic themes of corruption and horrid life, and devils hate him for creating the disobedient dead.


I found this distinction gave me useful ways to portray nuanced characters from both iconic factions.

[Gryndle]

there is also the basic objective of devils vs demons to consider. the way I see it; demons just want to slaughter and destroy everything, they aren't as interested in conquering anything so much as they just want to obliterate it. My pov of devils is that they want to corrupt, twist and conquer everything the gods held dear.

[Naanomi]

there is also the basic objective of devils vs demons to consider. the way I see it; demons just want to slaughter and destroy everything, they aren't as interested in conquering anything so much as they just want to obliterate it. My pov of devils is that they want to corrupt, twist and conquer everything the gods held dear.
True for lower ranking demons perhaps, but higher ranked demons can definetly be more conquest oriented. Do note however that the 'Gods' are rarely of interest to either demons or devils... while they interact sometimes, the affairs of Outsiders and of Powers tend to run in (intentionall) different circles.

[Unoriginal]

But isn't that an inherently Lawful belief?

No? It's a statement of fact. A warlord will have to manage a lot of things to be a warlord. There is a reason why all the statblocks for "leader" variants of monsters generally have higher mental stats than their mooks.



Picture a devil saying "Them damn anarchists became a farce the moment they banded under a leader, and now even their leader has to think like an accountant, ha!".

I can picture a devil thinking it's farcical that anarchists got more organized and unwittingly became the very system they despised. Many devils would find it genuinely funny, while some would feel contempt for mortals with ideals that easily corrupted and some would be displeased to have lost opponents that would have been interesting to toy with.



Each of them is like a boiler, a layer of hard discipline barely containing the rage inside. A demon would describe it as a devil's true self under the iron mask.

But I think most of us would consider the devil more relatable in that regard.

Uh... I dunno were this idea come from, but not all devils are like that. Some hide their true rage under a veneer of discipline and loyalty. Others are outspoken about their feelings, grandiose about their hate and/or unapologetic about their anger. Others have no particular rage and are just content making other suffers for their own enjoyment. Others have no issue being genuinely friendly at time and horrifically cruel at others.

[KorvinStarmast]

Demons make for an exciting battle.

Devils make for an intriguing war. Yeah.

I think I agree. I honestly think its bad to have them split because it seems to imply all demons are just pure chaotic with no intelligence and devils are all just planning and no emotion.
Balor
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
26 (+8) 15 (+2) 22 (+6) 20 (+5) 16 (+3) 22 (+6)

Glabrezu
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
20 (+5) 15 (+2) 21 (+5) 19 (+4) 17 (+3) 16 (+3)

Marilith
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
18 (+4) 20 (+5) 20 (+5) 18 (+4) 16 (+3) 20 (+5)

Nalfeshnee
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
21 (+5) 10 (+0) 22 (+6) 19 (+4) 12 (+1) 15 (+2)

Granted, there are some not as smart demons, but there are plenty of smart ones.

Seems to me that the reason for the distinction was the choice to go to the two axis alignment systems, and the way the planes/alignment relationships were set up early on.

I just want to point out that Demons Came First! (Eldritch Wizardry ....)

[Unoriginal]

there is also the basic objective of devils vs demons to consider. the way I see it; demons just want to slaughter and destroy everything, they aren't as interested in conquering anything so much as they just want to obliterate it. My pov of devils is that they want to corrupt, twist and conquer everything the gods held dear.


True for lower ranking demons perhaps, but higher ranked demons can definetly be more conquest oriented.

There is nothing about low ranking demons that makes them prefer to destroy something rather than conquer it. Demons enjoy having people to torment for a long time as much as they like blowing things up.

Give a Quasit a device with one button to burn a city to the ground and one button to enslave everyone inside, the Quasit is equally likely to press any of them. Though the Quasit would probably enjoy simply holding such power by itself.



Do note however that the 'Gods' are rarely of interest to either demons or devils... while they interact sometimes, the affairs of Outsiders and of Powers tend to run in (intentionall) different circles.

That's... debatable. Several of the higher ranking Fiends are either deities by themselves or pretend to be gods, and hindering the efforts of the benevolent gods/stealing the ressources of malevolent gods are certainly things the Fiends value. To say nothing about how many of the good outsiders who are known to oppose the evil ones work under the gods.

[Cybren]

No? It's a statement of fact. A warlord will have to manage a lot of things to be a warlord. There is a reason why all the statblocks for "leader" variants of monsters generally have higher mental stats than their mooks.

that's an anthropocentric statement of fact. I'm not sure you can make an adequate judgement as to what the best qualities of leadership are in an immortal race of manifested violence and sin

[Millstone85]

Seems to me that the reason for the distinction was the choice to go to the two axis alignment systems, and the way the planes/alignment relationships were set up early on.I can see no other reason. The Great Wheel is built on the conflict between Law and Chaos. That conflict gets as polite and conciliant as possible in the Upper Planes, and the farthest from that in the Lower Planes. Without that background, who cares if a fiend is a devil or a demon?


No? It's a statement of fact. A warlord will have to manage a lot of things to be a warlord. There is a reason why all the statblocks for "leader" variants of monsters generally have higher mental stats than their mooks.Why yes, in the mind of a being of Law, it is objective fact that hierarchy and rules will arise anywhere people try to accomplish anything together, and the more ambitious the goal the more orderly the enterprise. It is logical and ineluctable, just the way Chaos hates it.


I can picture a devil thinking it's farcical that anarchists got more organized and unwittingly became the very system they despised. Many devils would find it genuinely funny, while some would feel contempt for mortals with ideals that easily corrupted and some would be displeased to have lost opponents that would have been interesting to toy with.Mortals? The devil was talking about demons.


Uh... I dunno were this idea come from, but not all devils are like that. Some hide their true rage under a veneer of discipline and loyalty. Others are outspoken about their feelings, grandiose about their hate and/or unapologetic about their anger. Others have no particular rage and are just content making other suffers for their own enjoyment. Others have no issue being genuinely friendly at time and horrifically cruel at others.Rage, cruelty, fleeting sympathy... the full spectrum of perverse emotions. Not really the distinction I was going for. And yes, they can be honest about it, they are fiends after all. But they still have to fall in line and adhere to codes, that's what makes them devils.

[Theoboldi]

Mortals? The devil was talking about demons.

I feel like the demon side of things could make the exact same argument, though. :smalltongue:

"Hah, look at those devils! Always clinging to those outdated codes and contracts they pay lip service to. When in the end, they will always be willing to lie or weasel their way through the tiniest loopholes for their own benefit when it suits them. For all their posturing, they only follow their leaders because they fear their power as well!"

*evil demon laughter*
Clearly, that means both law and chaos are flawed. Ergo, the ones who are truly in the right are our glorious neutral evil yugoloth overlords.

[Ralanr]

Just because demons are chaotic evil doesn't mean they should be played up as chaotic stupid. Last I checked their mental scores don't actually suck.

Imo the real difference in how to play them as villains is their end goal. A devil might set up a war between two kingdoms because he has something in mind for all the death. A demon could set it up for only the carnage that follows.

I'd argue the best example of this is the main antagonist of Hellsing. He has a lot of plans and structure, but it's mainly to bring about one goal: he just wants war. He doesn't even care who wins the war, as long as there is war.

[Millstone85]

I feel like the demon side of things could make the exact same argument, though. :smalltongue:

"Hah, look at those devils! Always clinging to those outdated codes and contracts they pay lip service to. When in the end, they will always be willing to lie or weasel their way through the tiniest loopholes for their own benefit when it suits them. For all their posturing, they only follow their leaders because they fear their power as well!"

*evil demon laughter*That too falls under my boiler metaphor. But again, I find that easier to relate to. Vile desires "tempered" by unjust rules, that's how I see a D&D devil, and it is not that remote from mortal villainy.


Clearly, that means both law and chaos are flawed. Ergo, the ones who are truly in the right are our glorious neutral evil yugoloth overlords.Yup. They do not fight in the Blood War, they are the Blood War.

[EvilAnagram]

Ghengis Khan began his invasion of the Khwarazmian empire years before he maneuvered a single soldier.

He sent out spies, creating a vast intelligence network that provided him with every key person, every defensive and economic weakness in the empire. He knew the layout of the land, the weak bricks in city walls, and the hidden routes in and out.

When the invasion proper began, it was fait accompli. The Mongols swept through one of the largest empires in the world and left ruins in their wake. He executed entire cities, built pyramids of skulls, and utterly destroyed an entire civilization. In a scant three years, it ceased to exist.

And what's more, we know why he did it. You see, years earlier the Khwarazmian emperor had killed Mongol diplomats and insulted the Khan. For that insult, Ghengis Khan killed millions.

Nothing is more chaotic evil than leading a horde to rape and kill millions so that you can douse your rage in their blood. This is inarguably the most wanton act of destruction in human history, and yet Ghengis was nothing if not methodical and intentional in his approach.

The difference between a demon and a devil is that the demon is motivated by id, while the devil is motivated by the super-ego. Demons work to satisfy base urges, while devils work to enhance their social standing within the Nine Hells. Even Asmodeus wishes to enhance his standing by making himself the unrivaled ruler of the planes, while Orcus wishes to satisfy his base urges by spreading destruction and undeath. However, the two are nearly equal in intelligence, and both are capable of enacting complex plans to carry out their objectives.

[Gryndle]

There is nothing about low ranking demons that makes them prefer to destroy something rather than conquer it. Demons enjoy having people to torment for a long time as much as they like blowing things up.

Give a Quasit a device with one button to burn a city to the ground and one button to enslave everyone inside, the Quasit is equally likely to press any of them. Though the Quasit would probably enjoy simply holding such power by itself.



That's... debatable. Several of the higher ranking Fiends are either deities by themselves or pretend to be gods, and hindering the efforts of the benevolent gods/stealing the ressources of malevolent gods are certainly things the Fiends value. To say nothing about how many of the good outsiders who are known to oppose the evil ones work under the gods.

One thing that is clear is that the difference between devil and demon behavior is largley dependent on the individual, and the edition. Every write up of a demon lord or arch devil changes them in some way. Wasn't Grazzt even a devil until 3rd or 4th edition (or the other way around, I forget which he is now)

If you include the Blood War mythos, their roles are pretty clearly defined. If you don't, then their natures are fairly subjective. Setting makes a difference as well. What's written in the 5E monster manual about them isn't nearly detailed enough to say my way or your way or anyway is "right"

[Temperjoke]

I think it boils down to how they're used. It's easy to forget that demons are just as clever as devils, which means that when a DM needs a schemer/manipulator for a BBEG, they think of devils first. And that just perpetuates things. To be honest, I'm guilty of this too. I generally think of demons as being less subtle than devils, simply because they don't feel the need to be. You don't need a lawyer to work out a deal with a demon, while you need a whole team to review a devil's contract, but then you can "trust" a devil to the exact extent permitted in the contract, while you never know when the demon is going to betray you.

[Theoboldi]

That too falls under my boiler metaphor. But again, I find that easier to relate to. Vile desires "tempered" by unjust rules, that's how I see a D&D devil, and it is not that remote from mortal villainy.
Totally understandable, though I personally prefer it to be the other way around. With fiends, I do not want to be able to relate. Them, I like to be unabashedly cruel and hateful, with no real reason to their millenia-old plans and world-changing actions other than causing destruction and misery because they enjoy it, with even power being a secondary concern. This unapproachableness and rather alien viewpoint is what I'm looking for in my outsiders more than anything.

Of course, the fact that I think Asmodeus is a huge mary sue villain and really needs to be taken down a notch may colour my thinking too. :smalltongue:



Yup. They do not fight in the Blood War, they are the Blood War.
I remember someone once writing about the idea that the 5e Yugoloth are actually the ones responsible for the Blood War, in an effort to create an endless supply of wealth and violence for themselves.

I really kind of like that idea, for some reason.

[Nifft]

Wasn't Grazzt even a devil until 3rd or 4th edition (or the other way around, I forget which he is now) No, Grazzt was always a demon.

Check the 1e MM2 if you're curious.

== == ==

IMHO it's a disservice to the mythology and a hindrance to the DM's ingenuity to categorically assign Chaotic Stupid behavior to demons, just as it would make for poor gaming to assign Lawful Stupid to devils.

The chaotic monsters clearly do have the ability to organize -- otherwise there would never have been demon-princes, nor would those princes be served by their iconic minions.

Therefore, what must differ is the nature of their organizations.

I've got some ideas on how to do that, and I've used a couple of them in different settings, but I'm certain there are other ways to skin this particular dragon.

[Gryndle]

My mistake on Grazzt. I do know there was one of the demon lord/arch-devils that switched sides at least in 4E. Unfortunately I am currently babysitting an uncooperative 4 year old so cant research it

[JackPhoenix]

Clearly, that means both law and chaos are flawed. Ergo, the ones who are truly in the right are our glorious neutral evil yugoloth overlords.

But that's not how you spell Rakshasa....


No, Grazzt was always a demon.

4e, however, turned him into a devil corrupted by chaos.

[Gryndle]

thanks Jack, that's what I was thinking about

[Naanomi]

I remember someone once writing about the idea that the 5e Yugoloth are actually the ones responsible for the Blood War, in an effort to create an endless supply of wealth and violence for themselves.

I really kind of like that idea, for some reason.
Yugoloth definetly work to keep the conflict going; but they didn't start it. The Blood War is basically the continuation of the War of Law and Chaos; which ended when chaos 'lost' (their main leaders falling and the Chaotic Evil side burning their alliance with the Chaotic Good folks. Good was able to reconcile after the war because of the actions of Angels and Guardinals acting as peacemakers between the Archons and Eladrin (during but especially afterwards)

[Waterdeep Merch]

Demons are better as a primal force. They fit certain types of campaigns fine. Devils are better at organization and control. Your average western-oriented fantasy prefers villainous empires over primal evil, thus devils are the more typical antagonists in D&D games. Especially when a DM is trying to tell a more nuanced story- lawful evil can actually make a good point once in a while, and gains followers that aren't sociopaths. Since we all at least attempt to tell stories with some level of provocative commentary, devils are our go-to.

This isn't to say you can't tell an interesting story about chaotic evil demons. It's just a whole lot harder.

[Nifft]

But that's not how you spell Rakshasa....

Lords of Dust were cool.


4e, however, turned him into a devil corrupted by chaos.

Ah! Thanks, I hadn't seen that.