Malcanthet and other demon lords

[Ryblackadder]

Me and my friend are working on making stats for other demon lords who don’t have stats in D&D 5e as well as maybe making a few of our own. My major ambition is to make Malcanthet, demon lord of succubi and general badass (next up is Pazuzu!) I’m having trouble thinking of what her CR should be (I’m thinking 22 or so, she seems strong but not as much of a fighter as the others) and what her abilities should be. So far I have the idea that she can charm (obviously) do a draining kiss and can make illusionary duplicates of herself while having less than average health for her CR. What are your ideas or suggestions for Malcanthet, Pazuzu, or any of the other demon lords who aren’t statted? You can suggest your own ideas for demon lords if you want :) though non should be more powerful than the Demogorgon I think (around the same is fine though.)

[Protato]

Not a demon lord, but what about a statblock of Tharizdun? He's so absurdly strong that you might not be able to stat him though.

[Ryblackadder]

Tharizun is super cool and really a major badass but as a God and not a sorta mortal ish creature, I don’t think he can be statted. An avatar of his, a mortal shell he uses to interact with the world, could be possible though! Thanks for the suggestion

[Grear Bylls]

I wouldn't mind lolth if you could do her, please. For the succubi queen, maybe use the DC of the other lords, and some effects from the base succubi. Also, be creative with abilities, and build them off lore. Maybe check out previous edition versions?

[Ryblackadder]

I’ll add her to the list :) any requests for what she can do?

[Grear Bylls]

I’ll add her to the list :) any requests for what she can do?

Hmmm... probably lair action restrain, poison, or like. Shapeshifting. 4 leg jab piercing attacks. Webs. Spider climb. Maybe a poison sting attack that paralyzes, like Shelob. Grapple ability with webs. Web once per turn. Just some base ideas, not thinking about balance, but I think these would work, sort of.

[Beechgnome]

Tharizun is super cool and really a major badass but as a God and not a sorta mortal ish creature, I don’t think he can be statted. An avatar of his, a mortal shell he uses to interact with the world, could be possible though! Thanks for the suggestion

Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes has a bit in its Star Spawn section about Elder Evil Blessings and offers suggestions on once a day powers for star Spawn or cultists. Their suggestion for Tharizdon: a bonus action to give a weapon a 'spark' that if it hits and the target fails a DC 15 wisdom check, the target suffers short term madness. Potentially pretty nasty.

[Chaosmancer]

Thinking about abilities for Malcanthet, a spell list is obvious, but perhaps something like the fey warlock's ability to counter charm someone who attempts to charm them, only since no one would attempt that one her, make it an aura or something. She is temptation itself, and opening yourself to that in her presence is as good as inviting her in.

Also, almost all the major demons and devils have artifacts, don't forget to include whichever one Malcanthet either has or you make up (I feel like a rod or a crown fits, since she is the Queen) since it will probably alter her stats somewhat.

A lot of mind control effects I feel like... Oh, what about a poison in her claws, so that if you drop to zero instead of dying you are asleep for 24 hours or until the poison condition is removed. She doesn't want corpses, she wants playthings and it makes it harder to whack a mole her.

She'd be a big minion user, not sure if giving her a specific minion ability, some way to boost them in the same vein as the war chiefs battle cry ability, would be good or if you just note it on the minions themselves.

[hamishspence]

Keep in mind that succubi aren't demons anymore, but NE fiends. Malcanthet might be an advanced succubus residing on a layer, rather than a demon lord that can control that layer.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that succubi aren't demons anymore, but NE fiends. Malcanthet might be an advanced succubus residing on a layer, rather than a demon lord that can control that layer.

Or she could be (one of) the leader(s) of the succubi, but rather than being a Demon Primce she'd rule somewhere outside of the Abyss.

Or she could be a Demon Prince who merely has a lot of succubi among her servants.

In any case her lore probably need changes.


I think Chaosmancer is on tge right track, giving her a Commander-type ability that gives more actions to her allies would be good. I would not give her an artifact, though, most of the fiendish rulers don't have something that powerful.

[Fire Tarrasque]

Wait what?
Demon Lord of Succubi?
Graz'zt says hi.

Digging into the lore for those who didn't know, and since there's a discussion about her not being a Demon Lord, (Lord not Prince. There is only one Prince of Demons, and his name is DEMOGORGON.)
Currently, Malcanthet doesn't rule any layers in her own right (I believe,) but has instead taken up a position as Demogorgon's consort. Take that into account?

On to Tharizdun. (It's TharizDun, not Tharizun.)
Do not give Tharizdun stats.
He is not KIND OF a god. It (Not she, or he, or they, Tharizdun is undoubtedly an it) IS a god. In fact, Tharizdun is a god in the same way that the Tarrasque is a mortal.
You remember the Dawn War? The big conflict at the beginning of the world between gods and primordials?
That thing?
Well, there was a little break in the middle when Tharizdun... Well...
Single handedly created the Abyss and then tried to destroy EVERYTHING. And the only thing that stopped him was the Gods and Primordials ceasing their war for creation to team up on Tharizdun.
They STILL couldn't kill him. Instead he was locked away in his own little plane of existence. Where he stays... Well, MOSTLY stays. Sometimes teensy little parts of him leak out. Like for instance, Juiblex.
If Tharizdun has gotten out, YOU. HAVE. LOST.

[Ryblackadder]

I’ll take that into consideration, gods shouldn’t be statted after all. The lore used to show Malcanthet as a demon lord might not be canon anymore, still I think she’s a fun character who could make for a good boss fight.

[hamishspence]

Or she could be (one of) the leader(s) of the succubi, but rather than being a Demon Primce she'd rule somewhere outside of the Abyss.

Or she could be a Demon Prince who merely has a lot of succubi among her servants.

In any case her lore probably need changes.

I prefer not to change locations unless absolutely necessary. Thus - I'd keep Malcanthet's Abyssal layer and its description, even if I might change on or two things about Malcanthet her/himself.

Given the gender change ability of succubi/incubi - Malcanthet doesn't have to be portrayed as consistently female. Having Malcanthet constantly changing from one to the other might be a good way of emphasising succubus fluidity.

[Unoriginal]

Wait what?
Demon Lord of Succubi?
Graz'zt says hi.

Graz'zt is not the Demon Lord of Succubi.

[/QUOTE]
Digging into the lore for those who didn't know, and since there's a discussion about her not being a Demon Lord, (Lord not Prince. There is only one Prince of Demons, and his name is DEMOGORGON.)
Currently, Malcanthet doesn't rule any layers in her own right (I believe,) but has instead taken up a position as Demogorgon's consort. Take that into account?[/QUOTE]

There is no mention of Malcanthet as consort of Demogorgon in 5e, and no, 5e refers to the various rulers of the Abyss as Princes regularly (though it's true "Prince of Demons" is Demogorgon's epithet). So no there's a lot of princes.



On to Tharizdun. (It's TharizDun, not Tharizun.)
Do not give Tharizdun stats.
He is not KIND OF a god. It (Not she, or he, or they, Tharizdun is undoubtedly an it) IS a god. In fact, Tharizdun is a god in the same way that the Tarrasque is a mortal.
You remember the Dawn War? The big conflict at the beginning of the world between gods and primordials?
That thing?
Well, there was a little break in the middle when Tharizdun... Well...
Single handedly created the Abyss and then tried to destroy EVERYTHING. And the only thing that stopped him was the Gods and Primordials ceasing their war for creation to team up on Tharizdun.
They STILL couldn't kill him. Instead he was locked away in his own little plane of existence. Where he stays... Well, MOSTLY stays. Sometimes teensy little parts of him leak out. Like for instance, Juiblex.
If Tharizdun has gotten out, YOU. HAVE. LOST.

That lore is not 5e's lore.

Tharizdun has NOT created the Abyss in this edition.

He is a god, and an Elder Evil, and he created the Astral Dreadnoughts, but that's it.

Probably still not an entity players could fight, but he's no longer a "can take on two pantheons and only be subdued".



I prefer not to change locations unless absolutely necessary. Thus - I'd keep Malcanthet's Abyssal layer and its description, even if I might change on or two things about Malcanthet her/himself.

Why not? 5e didn't shy away from changing locations.

You'd at least have to change how the Layer is not the true homeland of incubi and succubi anymore.



Given the gender change ability of succubi/incubi - Malcanthet doesn't have to be portrayed as consistently female. Having Malcanthet constantly changing from one to the other might be a good way of emphasising succubus fluidity.

Not a bad idea.

Maybe give her three statblocks she can alternate between during the fight, with shared HPs.

[hamishspence]

You'd at least have to change how the Layer is not the true homeland of incubi and succubi anymore.

Something like



"The first succubi/incubi came into being in Hades, fought with the Night Hags, were thrown out, and have decamped to many other planes.

One large faction of them settled in the Abyss, one large faction settled in the Nine Hells, and there are small enclaves all over the Outer Planes. Some have even snuck back into Hades.

Reports of erinyes eyries consisting of many adult pairs with baby erinyes, are a case of mistaken identity - these were succubi with feathered wings instead of the usual bat wings.

Similarly, so-called "pleasure devils" are just feather-winged succubi."


Since the MM specifically says that, (unlike devils), succubi can reproduce with one another as well as with mortals.

[Unoriginal]

Hades is their native plane, though, so you still have to change a location. I'd rather change the lore of a single layer of the Abyss than of a whole plane.

[hamishspence]

Once they got kicked out of Hades, they stopped having a native plane.

The idea is to minimise the amount of changes to previous lore. To make a certain amount of old stuff, reusable.

[Chaosmancer]

Since the MM specifically says that, (unlike devils), succubi can reproduce with one another as well as with mortals.

Wait, it does?

How did I miss that... Hmmm, that opens up some interesting possibilities.


See, in my homebrew, Succubi are definetly Devils and Malcanthet is an Archduchess. It's a by product of me squeezing down the planes to simplify things and are tempters and corrupters Succubi just scream devil to me. But a big deal about Devils is they are only produced via a mortal soul being taken to the Hells via a willing contract. This actually giving birth thing is huge... Big enough I might need to cut it, but I wonder if I could make this interesting instead...

[Unoriginal]

Once they got kicked out of Hades, they stopped having a native plane.

The idea is to minimise the amount of changes to previous lore. To make a certain amount of old stuff, reusable.

Well, one, changing the lore of an entire plan AND of an entire kind of Fiends to make them fit past lore is a waaaaay bigger change than changing one layer of the Abyss a bit, so it doesn't minimise anything.

You could just say "incubi and succubi who deal with demons like to hang out there" and bam. Or you could go the other way and make the layer a part of Hades, with even less changes.

Two, making most incu/succubi come from the Abyss is basically making them Demons in a but name again.

Three, I don't see the point in trying to conform to lore of previous editions which is irrelevant to it and clashes with the established lore of 5e

[hamishspence]

Given that even Night Hags (now the creators of yugoloths, so older than yugoloths) are not the original inhabitants of Hades (they're regular hags that over time became a race of fiends) - maybe the succubi can fill that niche?

Having them be super-ancient exemplars of Neutral Evil, would be an interesting take on them.

[Unoriginal]

Given that even Night Hags (now the creators of yugoloths, so older than yugoloths) are not the original inhabitants of Hades (they're regular hags that over time became a race of fiends) - maybe the succubi can fill that niche?

Having them be super-ancient exemplars of Neutral Evil, would be an interesting take on them.

It's pretty much clear the Cubi are the one kind of Fiend (or at least, higher-tier kind of Fiends) who is the original inhabitant of Hades. Yugoloth are tied to Gehena first.

I like what being tied to Hades means for the Cubi.

[hamishspence]

It's worth noting that even in 4e (which changed succubi vastly more from 3e than 5e did - making them devils instead of NE fiends) there was still a layer of the Abyss called Shendilavri, and it was still ruled by a being called Malcanthet (Demonomicon - 4e).

5e is built on top of previous editions. Characters from previous editions, still exist in 5e, and tend to have similar histories. 5e Mordenkainen, like 3e Mordenkainen, is devoted to The Balance, has adventured alongside characters such as Rary, etc.

In that context, succubi being NE fiends might be a new thing even in-universe.

Perhaps Demogorgon, after being reborn and reclaiming his throne from the adventurer who foiled his Savage Tide plot and killed him, then decided to punish everyone (especially Malcanthet) who betrayed him back then?

Malcanthet (and all her succubus minions) could have been punished by "stripping them of their demonhood" - removing their Chaoticness, so that now they are just NE and no longer native to the Abyss?

The OP:


Me and my friend are working on making stats for other demon lords who don’t have stats in D&D 5e as well as maybe making a few of our own. My major ambition is to make Malcanthet, demon lord of succubi and general badass (next up is Pazuzu!) I’m having trouble thinking of what her CR should be (I’m thinking 22 or so, she seems strong but not as much of a fighter as the others) and what her abilities should be. So far I have the idea that she can charm (obviously) do a draining kiss and can make illusionary duplicates of herself while having less than average health for her CR. What are your ideas or suggestions for Malcanthet, Pazuzu, or any of the other demon lords who aren’t statted? You can suggest your own ideas for demon lords if you want :) though non should be more powerful than the Demogorgon I think (around the same is fine though.)

may want to keep as much of "3e Malcanthet's history" as they can manage.

[Unoriginal]

It's worth noting that even in 4e (which changed succubi vastly more from 3e than 5e did - making them devils instead of NE fiends) there was still a layer of the Abyss called Shendilavri, and it was still ruled by a being called Malcanthet (Demonomicon - 4e).

5e is built on top of previous editions. Characters from previous editions, still exist in 5e, and tend to have similar histories. 5e Mordenkainen, like 3e Mordenkainen, is devoted to The Balance, has adventured alongside characters such as Rary, etc.

5e is not a DLC patch to other editions. While some parts of the lore are similar, other are not. The 4e Raven Queen has little to do with the 5e one, 5e Asmodeus is different from both 4e and 3.X versions, etc.

The Incu-succubi are part of this change.



In that context, succubi being NE fiends might be a new thing even in-universe.

Perhaps Demogorgon, after being reborn and reclaiming his throne from the adventurer who foiled his Savage Tide plot and killed him, then decided to punish everyone (especially Malcanthet) who betrayed him back then?

Malcanthet (and all her succubus minions) could have been punished by "stripping them of their demonhood" - removing their Chaoticness, so that now they are just NE and no longer native to the Abyss?

I find that'd make them way less interesting, and it's at best doubtful Demogorgon has that kind of power.

Plus, you still have to change them and/or their layer.



The OP:
may want to keep as much of "3e Malcanthet's history" as they can manage.

I don't see anything in what OP wrote that'd suggest that, but if they want to do so they'd still have to pick the changes they want to make.

[hamishspence]

Not every demon lord rises from the ranks of demons. Some are outsiders that conquered a layer.

If a very powerful succubus by the name of Malcanthet conquered the layer of Shendilavri in the far distant past, they could be a "demon queen of succubi" without changing the conceit that the average succubus is not a demon.

[Fire Tarrasque]

Okay, by that logic, than the Dawn War never happened in 5e.
Sure, it hasn't been explicitly MENTIONED in 5e, but 5e is set in Forgotten Realms, and Forgotten Realms doesn't just reset every edition. Heck, there are even massive events that LINK the editions, like the Spellplague.

[JackPhoenix]

Okay, by that logic, than the Dawn War never happened in 5e.
Sure, it hasn't been explicitly MENTIONED in 5e, but 5e is set in Forgotten Realms, and Forgotten Realms doesn't just reset every edition. Heck, there are even massive events that LINK the editions, like the Spellplague.

The Dawn War also never happened before 4e. 5e FR does its best to avoid as much of 4e garbage as it can.

[hamishspence]

The DMG has the "Dawn War pantheon" - so they recognise that some people might want to update their 4e games to 5e while still playing in recognizably the same universe.

5e Warlocks owe a lot more to 4e than to 3e.

5e eladrins owe a lot more to 4e than to 3e.

And so on.

[Fire Tarrasque]

That changes nothing with the Lore. Gameplay is basically divorced from lore, and this is still the same Forgotten Realms as it was back in 2nd AD&D. Editions are not reboots. Unless previous lore is contradicted, as it was with the Will'o Wisp or Phoenix (Oh god, the Phoenix...) it can be for all intents and purposes still recognized as canon.
I didn't know 5e refered to them as Demon Princes though. My point about Graz'zt was that he is often associated with Succubi.

Edit: Tharizdun wasn't taking on two pantheons. "The gods and the primordials" mean ALL the gods and ALL the primordials.

[Ryblackadder]

You are all the best kinds of nerds ever! <3 I appreciate your inputs considering the various lore from the series when considering whether or not Malcanthet is a demon lord (not prince ;) ) or not. From what I have gathered, I may be wrong, Malcanthet is a demon lord who is unique among them in many ways being on good terms with many arch devils and demon lords. She has had... relations with the demogorgon at least once (how awkward must that have been?) and thus produced her lovely baby boy Pazuzu. She also seems to have her own layer which is actually a paradise... for her, and her alone. From what I can tell she’s less interested in the cosmic battle between hell and the abyss and more concerned with herself and her issues personally similarly to her neutral evil succubi and incubi sister/brother hood. The idea for a male version is very interesting considering I figure she sees her sex/gender as a tool to manipulate rather than a solid base for her/his identity. Thank you all for your ideas comments and suggestions!

[Fire Tarrasque]

Oh no, Malcanthet is going steady with Demogorgon, or at least was, to the point where she was the one who outed his last... Partner for manipulating him.

[Ryblackadder]

It’s nice to know the Demogorgon has someone looking out for him! Or... them? I wonder if Malcanthet likes one head more than other... I think the two have somewhat different personalities? I don’t know, just a thought!

[Unoriginal]

considering I figure she sees her sex/gender as a tool to manipulate rather than a solid base for her/his identity.

The Mordenkainen's pretty much use this exact sentence to describe fiends' genders.



Oh no, Malcanthet is going steady with Demogorgon, or at least was, to the point where she was the one who outed his last... Partner for manipulating him.

Going steady is antithetic to Demogorgon.

[Pronounceable]

Perhaps Demogorgon, after being reborn and reclaiming his throne from the adventurer who foiled his Savage Tide plot and killed him, then decided to punish everyone (especially Malcanthet) who betrayed him back then?

Malcanthet (and all her succubus minions) could have been punished by "stripping them of their demonhood" - removing their Chaoticness, so that now they are just NE and no longer native to the Abyss?
Ok now I'm pissed that this isn't canonically what happened. Would've made something neat out of Demogorgon being the Prince of Demons and the man (monkey?) in the Abyss. I mean, why are Orcus and Graz'zt at war with him over a mere title anyway? They could've just called themselves Prince of Demons, nobody could've stopped those two. Except for Demogorgon, who would've declared war on them to stop it. But no, it's always Graz'zt and Orcus coveting the title Prince of Demons and warring with ol' Monkeyfaces to try to take it from him (them?).

There's never been a satisfactory answer to why O&G can't decide to be the True Prince of Demons or even a "King/Emperor of Demons" and must make do with being Demon Prince of Bad Thing. Yes if you're some two bit balor without the power to stand up to Demogorgon's strength, you're gonna get rekt instantly but O&G explicitly have been at war with him since forever.

But I digress. Having the nature of succubi changed explicitly in the Planescape through some sort of cosmic event would be neat, and Demogorgon would be the guy for it. When they do that sort of **** in Forgotten Realms it's always idiotic and terribad, cos it's the wrong place. The planes is where you can do cosmic crisis crossover crap and make it work. I fully support this idea and suggest OP utilize it in their quest to Malcanthet.

[Unoriginal]

Ok now I'm pissed that this isn't canonically what happened. Would've made something neat out of Demogorgon being the Prince of Demons and the man (monkey?) in the Abyss. I mean, why are Orcus and Graz'zt at war with him over a mere title anyway? They could've just called themselves Prince of Demons, nobody could've stopped those two. Except for Demogorgon, who would've declared war on them to stop it. But no, it's always Graz'zt and Orcus coveting the title Prince of Demons and warring with ol' Monkeyfaces to try to take it from him (them?).

There's never been a satisfactory answer to why O&G can't decide to be the True Prince of Demons or even a "King/Emperor of Demons" and must make do with being Demon Prince of Bad Thing. Yes if you're some two bit balor without the power to stand up to Demogorgon's strength, you're gonna get rekt instantly but O&G explicitly have been at war with him since forever.

But I digress. Having the nature of succubi changed explicitly in the Planescape through some sort of cosmic event would be neat, and Demogorgon would be the guy for it. When they do that sort of **** in Forgotten Realms it's always idiotic and terribad, cos it's the wrong place. The planes is where you can do cosmic crisis crossover crap and make it work. I fully support this idea and suggest OP utilize it in their quest to Malcanthet.

In 5e, Demogorgon is not the "true" Prince of Demons, and others like Orcus or Gra'azt consider their own titles to be the best.

Demogorgon is simply the strongest, and can bend the lower tiers of Demons into servitude. The other princes just want to kill him.

[Fire Tarrasque]

Oh, the Prince of Demons title is a legit thing. It gives him powers wielded by no one else. For instance, he can force other demons to do basically whatever he wants them too as long as they aren't bound to a Demon Lord or a Demon Lord themselves, and even then Demo can still read their thoughts. It's no empty title, there's a reason why it was passed from Obox-Ob to Mishka, and then there was a violent conflict over it before it was given to taken by violently seized by Demogorgon.

As for Malcanthet and Demogorgon, she's not looking out for him. She's manipulating him, just as much as his last... partner.

[hamishspence]

She has had... relations with the demogorgon at least once (how awkward must that have been?) and thus produced her lovely baby boy Pazuzu.

Pazuzu (at least in 3e and 4e) is older than Demogorgon.

Arendagrost is Demogorgon and Malcanthet's offspring.

[Fire Tarrasque]

Rule of thumb for Demogorgon's age:
If it's an Obyrith, it's older. If it's a Tanari, it's younger.

[hamishspence]

I don't think the word's been used yet in 5e products though. Still, I suspect that if and when fluff does come out concerning Dagon, Pale Night, and Pazuzu in 5e, it will paint them as ancient compared to "regular" Demon Lords.

[SaintRidley]

Wait what?
Demon Lord of Succubi?
Graz'zt says hi.

Digging into the lore for those who didn't know, and since there's a discussion about her not being a Demon Lord, (Lord not Prince. There is only one Prince of Demons, and his name is DEMOGORGON.)
Currently, Malcanthet doesn't rule any layers in her own right (I believe,) but has instead taken up a position as Demogorgon's consort. Take that into account?


Digging back to 3.5, since that's the last before Succubi were removed from the ranks of demons (because they didn't look bestial, mind, so that's something I fully ignore at my own table): Malcanthet does have a layer of the Abyss as of her last referenced time as a demon: Layer 570, Shendilavri.


Nothing I can find about her being Demogorgon's consort in anything current or even for a long term, only that Demogorgon was one of her few allies back in 3.5 and that one of their children is a monster called Arendagrost. And that she betrayed him in some 4e something or other maybe.

Oh, and Graz'zt did pretend to be Malcanthet once and seduced Kostchtchie (one of the ugliest demon lords), a source of terminal embarrassment to Malcanthet. So there's that fun.

Honestly, what 4e did to succubi and 5e has done to back away from it but not fully is too much for me to be bothered with, personally. Totally worth ignoring that stuff.

[Chaosmancer]

You know, it always kind of confused me why Succubi were demons. Manipulators and temptors, they just fit with the devil MO so well.

[Unoriginal]

You know, it always kind of confused me why Succubi were demons. Manipulators and temptors, they just fit with the devil MO so well.

Demons are ALSO manipulators and temptors.


Fraz-Urb'luu is a particularly amazing one, and tons of others such as Gra'azt don't shy away from it.


Demons are not any less intelligent, charismatic or subtle than the Devils, if they wish so. Just like Devils can be violent rampage-mongers with no subtlety.

It's only 4e that went "dumb animalistic brute = demon".


Personally, though, I prefer the Succubi as independent Fiends.

[Chaosmancer]

Demons are ALSO manipulators and temptors.


Fraz-Urb'luu is a particularly amazing one, and tons of others such as Gra'azt don't shy away from it.


Demons are not any less intelligent, charismatic or subtle than the Devils, if they wish so. Just like Devils can be violent rampage-mongers with no subtlety.

It's only 4e that went "dumb animalistic brute = demon".

So the only difference is that one lies and the other doesn't?

With just this little blurb then, it sounds like 4e made the right choice. Otherwise how are you supposed to tell the difference between the Lawful devils and chaotic demons?

And then, if both are full continuums, where do the Yugoloths fit in? I always thought they were supposed to be the evil middle ground, but both devils and demons seem to occupy both sides of the spectrum, so what point is there in the middle ground that is already covered twice?

[Unoriginal]

So the only difference is that one lies and the other doesn't?

No, both lie. A lot. All the time, if they can get away with it.



With just this little blurb then, it sounds like 4e made the right choice. Otherwise how are you supposed to tell the difference between the Lawful devils and chaotic demons?

What do you mean "how are you supposed to tell the the difference"? Chaotic Evil demons don't care about rules, structures, or contracts. Devils believe in hierarchies and codes an cannot break a formal deal (well, they can, but the consequences are so high they don't want to).

4e taking something multi-dimensional and reducing it was definitively not the right choice.



And then, if both are full continuums, where do the Yugoloths fit in? I always thought they were supposed to be the evil middle ground, but both devils and demons seem to occupy both sides of the spectrum, so what point is there in the middle ground that is already covered twice?

You seem to be mistaken about what "the spectrum" is. Evil coupled with Law and chaos isn't "lol scheming manipulators" on one side and "lol bestial maniacs" on the other.

The Yugoloth are evil beings who believe in some level of organisation as long as it benefit themselves personally, but who don't have an issue with betraying a contract if doing so is better for them.

[Chaosmancer]

No, both lie. A lot. All the time, if they can get away with it.



What do you mean "how are you supposed to tell the the difference"? Chaotic Evil demons don't care about rules, structures, or contracts. Devils believe in hierarchies and codes an cannot break a formal deal (well, they can, but the consequences are so high they don't want to).

4e taking something multi-dimensional and reducing it was definitively not the right choice.



You seem to be mistaken about what "the spectrum" is. Evil coupled with Law and chaos isn't "lol scheming manipulators" on one side and "lol bestial maniacs" on the other.

The Yugoloth are evil beings who believe in some level of organisation as long as it benefit themselves personally, but who don't have an issue with betraying a contract if doing so is better for them.

I'm not saying go "LOL" with their alignments but actions speak louder than words and so far there aren't a lot of actions to go off of.

Both demons and devils are clever manipulators and temptors with a penchant for destruction and lying.

And, demons do believe in hierarchies. The strong rule over the weak, that is a hierarchy. Now, it would seem that the simple nature of that would make it vastly different than the Devil's system... Except that higher ranked devils are almost always stronger than lower ranked devils. So, effectively the same system exists, the strong rule over the weak.

And so, in practice it seems the only difference that stays true across the three are: Demons are likely to break a deal, Yugoloths may break a deal, devils won't break a deal (though they will likely twist it to bite you anyways)

That doesn't seem multi-faceted and interesting to me. That seems like the lines were drawn almost arbitrarily. We can say "devils care about rules" but what does that actually mean? Is a devil going to obey a curfew? Not likely. I doubt they would follow most human laws, unless they felt breaking things within those laws was more fun, at the table this doesn't seem to translate into anything.

If they are this similar and overlap so many different bases... What is the actual difference? The reason I think 4e made a good call is that they gave an actual distinction in behavior that makes a difference. Demons tend to destroy, Devils tend to deal. What subtlety of earlier editions are we ruining by actually having a difference between the two?

[SaintRidley]

Demons tended toward destruction and devils tended toward dealing to begin with. 4e's major change was to shuffle things around so if it looked human enough it was a devil and anything sufficiently bestial looking was a demon, and generally did away with the presumption that demons might be intelligent as well.

Devils are Lawful Evil. They're schemers who operate more subtly when dealing with mortals, because they want/need their souls both in order to reproduce and because of things relating to their economy and their society. They value hierarchy and rules for their own sake, and their legal and social structures are highly formalized to the point of nearly being ritualistic. They've got formalized demotion/promotion procedures, so strength being reserved for the higher-ranking is a matter of reward/punishment.

Demons are Chaotic Evil. They mostly aren't schemers, and they aren't subtle. They don't need mortal souls in order to make more demons - the Abyss spawns demons on its own - any souls just become bonus demons. A demon is ultimately only out for number one - the only hierarchy they respect is might makes right, and even then they don't care or respect the stronger in any material way. When a demon wants to betray another higher up on the totem, they simply do it, whereas a devil who wishes to betray a superior is going to do so through every loophole and patsy they can muster so as to ensure their own promotion and keep the heat off their backs. Demons are not stupid, but they are fiercely individualistic and anarchic.


A demon is loath to deal in the first place, and if they do, there's virtually zero chance they keep it. Yugoloths will hold to their deal until a better offer comes along - and they'll literally change sides in the middle of a battle. You can be absolutely certain a devil will hold to a deal - but the devil is in the details.

I encourage looking to the Fiendish Codex books from 3.5 - they'll give you plenty to chew on if you want to understand what the difference is.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not saying go "LOL" with their alignments but actions speak louder than words and so far there aren't a lot of actions to go off of.

Both demons and devils are clever manipulators and temptors with a penchant for destruction and lying.

So are Drows, Vampires, Liches, ... most of D&D bad guys who are actually threatening, actually. Because being smart, devious AND tough is kind of a requirement to be a huge threat in such a world.


Like often about alignment issues, it's less the ACTION that defines it than the REASONS for the action.

A Devil might cause a kingdom to fall because it'll further their personal ambitions, please their superiors (which could lead to a promotion) AND serve the cause of Hell. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.

A Yuggoloth might cause a kingdom to fall because they'd get a personal benefit out of it. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.

A Demon might cause a kingdom to fall because they suddenly got pissed, or because they thought it'd be a good spectacle, or because it correspond to their grand vision on what the world should look like. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.



And, demons do believe in hierarchies. The strong rule over the weak, that is a hierarchy.

It's not. A Demon doesn't follow another demon because of a formal order, they do it because they get punched until they follow.

For a Demon, having to follow another Demon is just a momentary aberration and soon the strong (ie, this particular Demon) will rule over the weak (ie, everything else) again.



Now, it would seem that the simple nature of that would make it vastly different than the Devil's system... Except that higher ranked devils are almost always stronger than lower ranked devils. So, effectively the same system exists, the strong rule over the weak.

You're wrong on two counts.

First, you said that that the higher ranked Devils are stronger than lower ranked Devils is "almost always stronger", which is enough to disprove that it's effectively the same system as the Demons.

Titivilus is a Duke of Hell, and weaker than the Pit Fiends who are below him in the hierarchy.

Second: a Devil is MADE strong to correspond to which step of the ladder they're on. A Demon with power can force underlings to serve them, but a Devil who has demonstrated the skills to have underlings will be given power.



And so, in practice it seems the only difference that stays true across the three are: Demons are likely to break a deal, Yugoloths may break a deal, devils won't break a deal (though they will likely twist it to bite you anyways)

That's the most obvious difference in how they handle mortals.



That doesn't seem multi-faceted and interesting to me. That seems like the lines were drawn almost arbitrarily.

[QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23102634]We can say "devils care about rules" but what does that actually mean? Is a devil going to obey a curfew? Not likely. I doubt they would follow most human laws, unless they felt breaking things within those laws was more fun, at the table this doesn't seem to translate into anything.

Devils follow Infernal laws. If a curfew is ordered by Hell, they WILL follow. They will try to find any loopholes or strain the word of the law while avoid its spirit completely, but the law WILL be respected as far as any judge can tell.



If they are this similar and overlap so many different bases... What is the actual difference?


There are tons of differences.

Devils tends to control themselves - Demons tend to be driven by their emotions, passions, desires, grudges, etc.

Devils are created through the harnessing of lawful evil souls who went through the river Styx - Demons are randomly created by the Abyss.

Devils increase in ranks through their capacities and accomplishments - Demons get increase of powers randomly.

Devils are mostly uniform - Each Demon is has a clearly unique appearance

Devils want to make deals with mortals to get their souls to get power - Demons sometime interact with mortals to get someone that share their opnion they, personally, should rule the cosmos (both side use the mortals as tools for various, but different taks).

Devils are mostly rational, if wicked - Demons are mad and arbitrary, if malevolent.

Etc, etc.


It's not because they use the same tools - lies and violence - than they're the same.




The reason I think 4e made a good call is that they gave an actual distinction in behavior that makes a difference. Demons tend to destroy, Devils tend to deal. What subtlety of earlier editions are we ruining by actually having a difference between the two?

Take Fraz-Urb'luu. Liar extraordinaire, one of the best user of the "pretend to be different gods to trick people" ruse, and insanely charismatic. Also mad like a bag of weasels, with schemes who might or might not have a reason behind them.

Take Moloch. A great bruiser and military leader, got his own layer after he managed to beat off invaders. Nearly managed to beat Asmodeus. Also a good schemer, a pretty great magic user (notably known for the creation of his Eidolon underlings, which is a power more often seen in gods), and someone who regularly manages to infiltrate Hell under a disguise.


4e: "Nuh-uh, Fraz-Urb'luu is good at deception so he's a Devil and Moloch is at ease destroying things on a battlefield so he's a Demon."


That's what is ruined. 4e wants to reduce fiendish characters to the tools they use, rather than to why and what they do with said tools. It's making cardboard cutouts out of antagonists whose motivation to be evil is only because they're *born* loving to do evil.




I encourage looking to the Fiendish Codex books from 3.5 - they'll give you plenty to chew on if you want to understand what the difference is.

Or read the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, which makes the difference pretty explicit all the way.

[Chaosmancer]

Devils are Lawful Evil. They're schemers who operate more subtly when dealing with mortals, because they want/need their souls both in order to reproduce and because of things relating to their economy and their society. They value hierarchy and rules for their own sake, and their legal and social structures are highly formalized to the point of nearly being ritualistic. They've got formalized demotion/promotion procedures, so strength being reserved for the higher-ranking is a matter of reward/punishment.

Demons are Chaotic Evil. They mostly aren't schemers, and they aren't subtle. They don't need mortal souls in order to make more demons - the Abyss spawns demons on its own - any souls just become bonus demons. A demon is ultimately only out for number one - the only hierarchy they respect is might makes right, and even then they don't care or respect the stronger in any material way. When a demon wants to betray another higher up on the totem, they simply do it, whereas a devil who wishes to betray a superior is going to do so through every loophole and patsy they can muster so as to ensure their own promotion and keep the heat off their backs. Demons are not stupid, but they are fiercely individualistic and anarchic.

A demon is loath to deal in the first place, and if they do, there's virtually zero chance they keep it. Yugoloths will hold to their deal until a better offer comes along - and they'll literally change sides in the middle of a battle. You can be absolutely certain a devil will hold to a deal - but the devil is in the details.

I encourage looking to the Fiendish Codex books from 3.5 - they'll give you plenty to chew on if you want to understand what the difference is.


See the things you are saying is making some sense. Some of this is exactly what I had always heard the at Demons are destructive and devils are schemers who follow the rules.

But, I'm getting told by Unoriginal that demons are also schemers who care about the details and Devils are also destructive brutes who will lie to your face. Some of the things he's saying seem like they are erasing the differences.




So are Drows, Vampires, Liches, ... most of D&D bad guys who are actually threatening, actually. Because being smart, devious AND tough is kind of a requirement to be a huge threat in such a world.

Okay, but if we are talking about what defines them, Drow, Vampires and Liches are not known for making deals or being extraplanar definitions of evil.

Heck, Beholders are definitely more schemers that destroyers.

I guess, do you think I believe Demons to be stupid? No, I don't, but their main goal isn't "How can I get ahead in this situation, how can I turn this around" it is "How do I destroy the most stuff".

I guess I'm just confused why we are talking about all these different evil creatures?

Golems can be threatening and stupid. So is the Tarraseque, Kraken, elementals, Purple Worms. All dangerous and not bright, do we want to make a list of the enemies that are smart compared to stupid?




Like often about alignment issues, it's less the ACTION that defines it than the REASONS for the action.

A Devil might cause a kingdom to fall because it'll further their personal ambitions, please their superiors (which could lead to a promotion) AND serve the cause of Hell. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.

A Yuggoloth might cause a kingdom to fall because they'd get a personal benefit out of it. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.

A Demon might cause a kingdom to fall because they suddenly got pissed, or because they thought it'd be a good spectacle, or because it correspond to their grand vision on what the world should look like. Plus they'll enjoy making its people suffer.

But, according to your claims about demons being schemers a Demon could cause a demon to fall because it will further their ambitions. And a Devil could do it because the kingdom pissed them off and they thought it would be funny. This is why what you claimed is confusing me, if there are Devilish Demons and Demonic Devils, then what is the point of the distinctions?




It's not. A Demon doesn't follow another demon because of a formal order, they do it because they get punched until they follow.

For a Demon, having to follow another Demon is just a momentary aberration and soon the strong (ie, this particular Demon) will rule over the weak (ie, everything else) again.

And Devils totally wouldn't come to physical harm by telling their bosses no? And their position at the bottom of the pecking order isn't a temporary aberration until they can prove they are better than their superiors and take their positions?




You're wrong on two counts.

First, you said that that the higher ranked Devils are stronger than lower ranked Devils is "almost always stronger", which is enough to disprove that it's effectively the same system as the Demons.

Titivilus is a Duke of Hell, and weaker than the Pit Fiends who are below him in the hierarchy.

Second: a Devil is MADE strong to correspond to which step of the ladder they're on. A Demon with power can force underlings to serve them, but a Devil who has demonstrated the skills to have underlings will be given power.

See, I wasn't sure if there was any Devil weaker than those lower in the totem pole than they were. I hadn't seen Titivilus's stats and I think he is the only exception to the rules. So yes, it isn't exactly the same system, but it is effectively very similar.

But I think the second point is hard to argue here. Devils are moved up the ranks and made more powerful, but as Demons evolve (cause I was under the impression that a demon starts as a Mane or a Dretch and evolves over time rising through the ranks, and becoming more powerful and thus able to force weaker demons to serve them) the same process takes place. It simply isn't formalized. That makes a difference sure, but it seems minor if the only difference is how formal the proccess is.



Devils follow Infernal laws. If a curfew is ordered by Hell, they WILL follow. They will try to find any loopholes or strain the word of the law while avoid its spirit completely, but the law WILL be respected as far as any judge can tell.

Okay, this seems like what I was saying earlier. I guess, does Infernal law not say anything about lying? I'm trying to understand here, but while earlier you were telling me I'm wrong now you seem to be saying the same sorts of things I was trying to say. Are we just using different words for the same types of things here?




There are tons of differences.

Devils tends to control themselves - Demons tend to be driven by their emotions, passions, desires, grudges, etc.

Ummm... this goes against what you were saying? I guess when you said there are Demons who are self possessed and schemers they were driven by passions and had no control? And the Devils who are driven to destroy aren't driven by personal desire and are in perfect control of themselves?

Which way is it? Sure, we are saying "tends to" but I don't remember setting ultimatums when I started talking about it being strange to me that Succubi as schemers tended to fit better with Devils than Demons, and you starting going on about how similar Demons and Devils were.



Devils are created through the harnessing of lawful evil souls who went through the river Styx - Demons are randomly created by the Abyss.

Cool.



Devils increase in ranks through their capacities and accomplishments - Demons get increase of powers randomly. []

Is it random? I thought as they killed and devoured things they gained more power. As they gain more power they eventually change into a new forms. I didn't think it was utterly random.



Devils are mostly uniform - Each Demon is has a clearly unique appearance

Wait, is this canon? I didn't realize every single demon had a unique appearance. How do you know what a Marilith is then, since they can't all look like half-snake women with six arms? Or is it simply that one has purple scales and another has blue hair ect, cause... I mean that is cool but it doesn't exactly make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.



Devils want to make deals with mortals to get their souls to get power - Demons sometime interact with mortals to get someone that share their opnion they, personally, should rule the cosmos (both side use the mortals as tools for various, but different taks).

So? Devils make deals for souls... so they are deal makers and schemers, like I said before. Demons... don't make deals? They just seek to control everything? But Devils are also trying to control everything? I mean I'm confused how big of a difference this is.



Devils are mostly rational, if wicked - Demons are mad and arbitrary, if malevolent.

But some devils are arbitrarily violent and some demons are long term plotters, according to what you said earlier.

So which is it? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.





It's not because they use the same tools - lies and violence - than they're the same.

I never said devils didn't use violence did I? It is which tools do they go for first, isn't it? Like, I'm trying to understand your points. A lot of points here seem to be hair thin.



Take Fraz-Urb'luu. Liar extraordinaire, one of the best user of the "pretend to be different gods to trick people" ruse, and insanely charismatic. Also mad like a bag of weasels, with schemes who might or might not have a reason behind them.

Take Moloch. A great bruiser and military leader, got his own layer after he managed to beat off invaders. Nearly managed to beat Asmodeus. Also a good schemer, a pretty great magic user (notably known for the creation of his Eidolon underlings, which is a power more often seen in gods), and someone who regularly manages to infiltrate Hell under a disguise.


4e: "Nuh-uh, Fraz-Urb'luu is good at deception so he's a Devil and Moloch is at ease destroying things on a battlefield so he's a Demon."

That's what is ruined. 4e wants to reduce fiendish characters to the tools they use, rather than to why and what they do with said tools. It's making cardboard cutouts out of antagonists whose motivation to be evil is only because they're *born* loving to do evil.

Okay...

So Moloch is a schemer, a planner, and regularly sneaks into Hell. Why shouldn't he be a Devil then, even under the idea of long term planning and deception that 4e put forth. Being good in a fight doesn't disqualify you from being a Devil, otherwise 4e's Archdevils would have been push overs to fight, and I very much doubt that is the case. I don't think Asmodeus has ever been a figure who people said "If we can just get him in a straight up fight, we can win"

But, here is some confusion for me, why is Fraz-Urb'luu a demon? Because he is crazy? Being crazy isn't a qualifier for Demonhood, he almost seems like more of an Elder Evil to me. Crazy, pretends to be a God, may or not have a purpose. Sounds like Zargon and other "Creatures from beyond the stars" so, why is he a Demon? Because he was labeled a demon way back when, fine, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

See, I think your view of what 4e did is slightly skewed. They don't reduce them to what tools they use, they just clear up the motivations. Demons want to destroy everything, to tear down the world. This means they will tend towards the more destructive options, they won't bother making a deal with someone, unless that deal opens the way to more destruction down the line (ie Orcus gives cultists powers to raise undead, creating a zombie plague which causes more damage than just killing the cultists who came to him).

Devils though want to control the world, killing people is fine if they are in the way, but it isn't the point. They are much more likely to go for schemes that obfuscate the truth, or set them up for more control down the line. They want souls to build the armies of hell, they seek out cultists and converts instead of waiting for them to show up.

This is why Succubus confuse me as demons, they are tempting souls from mortals.... why? They might manipulate a war or something, but they seem like they'd fit so much better into the Devil archetype, convincing people to see the world their way, gathering souls to fill up the armies ranks, they just fit naturally into those motivations instead of the motivations of destruction that I feel Demons embody.

And your assertion that Demons also try to build and control through scheming and devils also try and destroy the things they come across, seems like hitting the blend button. It just doesn't compute with me. They have to remain different enough that a player who comes across them knows what to expect. They are opposed, not united.



Or read the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, which makes the difference pretty explicit all the way.

Don't have Mordenkainen's yet, not looking to getting that til next month.

[Unoriginal]

See the things you are saying is making some sense. Some of this is exactly what I had always heard the at Demons are destructive and devils are schemers who follow the rules.

But, I'm getting told by Unoriginal that demons are also schemers who care about the details and Devils are also destructive brutes who will lie to your face. Some of the things he's saying seem like they are erasing the differences.



I guess, do you think I believe Demons to be stupid? No, I don't, but their main goal isn't "How can I get ahead in this situation, how can I turn this around" it is "How do I destroy the most stuff".


Demons want to destroy everything, to tear down the world. This means they will tend towards the more destructive options, they won't bother making a deal with someone, unless that deal opens the way to more destruction down the line (ie Orcus gives cultists powers to raise undead, creating a zombie plague which causes more damage than just killing the cultists who came to him).

Alright, what you're doing here is taking an arbitrary affirmation/bias, and trying to make everything fit it.

Yes, Demons are destroyers.

Demogorgon in particular wants to destroy everything, Orcus wants a world of unlife, Gra'azt wants a cosmos filled with hedonism centered around himself, Baphomet and Yeenoguh want everyone to behave in different kind of animalistic behaviors and savagery, Juiblex wants oozes to be everywhere, etc etc.

They want to take what exist and infect it and twist it and hurt it until it's shaped in a way they like, which can be "total destruction".

The way they go about it, though, does NOT exclude scheming, careful manipulations, or any subtle methods.

Demogorgon sometime contacts mortals' minds to prompt them to form a cult, take over their community, then do his bidding.

Orcus is known for tempting wizards with the secret of Lichdom.

Baphomet tricks people into transforming themselves into his minotaur servants, by pretending to be a nature deity and saying that the ritual will help them.

Gra'azt once got the last laugh of an opponent by admitting to everyone said opponent managed to rob him of an artifact of enormous power. Others could think it'd make him look weak, but by doing so he ensured the thief would be pursued by all the forces in the universe who would be interested by that artifact, without having to lift one finger himself.

That's it. Because it's not because you want to bend the cosmos into your personal project that you can't be smart about it.

Meanwhile, yes, some Devils are brutes, and ALL Devils will lie to your face if they can get away with it. And most can.




Heck, Beholders are definitely more schemers that destroyers.

No, they're both, equally. They scheme to destroy, they destroy to scheme.

Some like the Xanathar's are more on the scheming side than on the "let's corrupt nature on a grand scale" business, but such Beholders are not the common type.



I guess I'm just confused why we are talking about all these different evil creatures?

Because you seem to claim you can't be a destroyer and a schemer, when those creatures are both.



Golems can be threatening and stupid. So is the Tarraseque, Kraken, elementals, Purple Worms. All dangerous and not bright, do we want to make a list of the enemies that are smart compared to stupid?

Krakens are devilishly smart, and the Tarrasque, elementals, Purple Worms, golems etc are just wild beasts or tools for smarter people. They're obstacles, not antagonists.



But, according to your claims about demons being schemers a Demon could cause a demon to fall because it will further their ambitions. And a Devil could do it because the kingdom pissed them off and they thought it would be funny.

A Demon is capable of pragmatic decisions, even if they are pissed off, while a Devil is capable of letting petty feelings direct their actions.

It's just that a Demon is equally likely to waste efforts on a side project while they're pissed of/think it's funny to do so, even when there are more pragmatic targets who also would be funny/have pissed them off, while a Devil generally will use those petty feelings as motivation to come up with a scheme that further their ambitions.

To give one example:

Demons hate the Nine Hells. But they also know that if they attack a place that is less universally hated, everyone will gang up against the Abyss. So they keep Hell as their main target, for both emotional and pragmatic reasons.




This is why what you claimed is confusing me, if there are Devilish Demons and Demonic Devils, then what is the point of the distinctions? [/QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]

You're the one arbitrarily deciding that a Demon being able to pull out a scheme makes them "devilish" or a Devils having emotions make them "demonic".

There is no relation between those traits and those qualifiers.

[QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]
And Devils totally wouldn't come to physical harm by telling their bosses no?[/QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]

A Devil wouldn't tell their boss no. They might twist the order or find a way to turn it to their advantage, but no devil above Lemure is dumb enough to say "no" to the boss.

[QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]
And their position at the bottom of the pecking order isn't a temporary aberration until they can prove they are better than their superiors and take their positions?

A Devil sees it as a necessary evil that they will escape by playing the game. After all, what is the point of increasing in rank if you don't have followers who know their place under you?



See, I wasn't sure if there was any Devil weaker than those lower in the totem pole than they were. I hadn't seen Titivilus's stats and I think he is the only exception to the rules. So yes, it isn't exactly the same system, but it is effectively very similar.

No it's not. You're ignoring the facts.



But I think the second point is hard to argue here. Devils are moved up the ranks and made more powerful, but as Demons evolve (cause I was under the impression that a demon starts as a Mane or a Dretch and evolves over time rising through the ranks, and becoming more powerful and thus able to force weaker demons to serve them) the same process takes place. It simply isn't formalized. That makes a difference sure, but it seems minor if the only difference is how formal the proccess is.


A Demon gains underlings because they're strong.

A Devils become strong because they have proved they can handle underlings.

The two are opposite to each others.

It's like in one case you became mayor because you had a black belt, and in the other case you gain a black belt because you've been elected mayor.



Okay, this seems like what I was saying earlier. I guess, does Infernal law not say anything about lying? I'm trying to understand here, but while earlier you were telling me I'm wrong now you seem to be saying the same sorts of things I was trying to say. Are we just using different words for the same types of things here? [QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]

What's your deal about infernal law and lying?

Devils can't lie in a pact, that is to say they have to obey to the letter of it. Other than that, they can and do lie as much as they want.


[QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]
Ummm... this goes against what you were saying? I guess when you said there are Demons who are self possessed and schemers they were driven by passions and had no control? And the Devils who are driven to destroy aren't driven by personal desire and are in perfect control of themselves?

It does NOT against what I was saying.

You can be self-possessed and a schemer even when driven by passion, and a Devil can engage in destruction due to personal desire or loss of control from time to time without being any less lawful evil.



Which way is it? Sure, we are saying "tends to" but I don't remember setting ultimatums when I started talking about it being strange to me that Succubi as schemers tended to fit better with Devils than Demons, and you starting going on about how similar Demons and Devils were.

If there is no ultimatum set, why are you surprised that the creatures aren't meeting ultimatums?



Is it random? I thought as they killed and devoured things they gained more power. As they gain more power they eventually change into a new forms. I didn't think it was utterly random. [/QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]

More or less random, this edition. It's related to how old the Demon is, in principle, but how much Abyss energy they get pumped with is pretty random. It's just that if you wait long enough, random amounts will end up adding into becoming "a lot".

[QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23103100]
Wait, is this canon? I didn't realize every single demon had a unique appearance. How do you know what a Marilith is then, since they can't all look like half-snake women with six arms? Or is it simply that one has purple scales and another has blue hair ect, cause... I mean that is cool but it doesn't exactly make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.

It's mostly minor details, but there could be Marilith with eight, nine, or four arms, or two arms and four wings, or whatever. One of the examples in the book is a Vrock with three eyes and no flight-capable wings.

As to how do we know what is what: we don't really know, they are just broad categories of Demons who share a relatively similar shape, so they're classified together by some people.





But some devils are arbitrarily violent and some demons are long term plotters, according to what you said earlier.

So which is it? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Look.

You see who Asmodeus is? Ultimate master of Hell? Smooth guy? Smart, wise, charismatic? Man of Wealth and Taste? Lawful evil to the core?

He once got so angry he personally pummeled an Archduchess of Hell to death, so hard she was plastered all around the layer she controlled.

SOMETIME Devils will act with berserk-like violence

Alignments aren't absolute nor hermetic, even for the creatures who embodies them. Otherwise there would be no fallen angels at all.



But, here is some confusion for me, why is Fraz-Urb'luu a demon? Because he is crazy? Being crazy isn't a qualifier for Demonhood, he almost seems like more of an Elder Evil to me. Crazy, pretends to be a God, may or not have a purpose. Sounds like Zargon and other "Creatures from beyond the stars" so, why is he a Demon? Because he was labeled a demon way back when, fine, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

You're looking at a properly defined Demon, and going "eh, he doesn't fit my/4e's definition, he must be something else and only be a Demon because of tradition."



FRAZ- URB'LUU

All demons are liars, but Fraz-Urb'luu is the Prince of Deception and Demon Lord of Illusions. He uses every trick, every ounce of demonic cunning, to manipulate his enemies- mortal and fiend alike- to do his will. Fraz-Urb'luu can create dreamlands and mind-bending fantasies able to deceive the most discerning foes.

Once imprisoned for centuries below Castle Greyhawk on the world of Oerth, Fraz-Urb'luu has slowly rebuilt his power in the Abyss. He seeks the pieces of the legendary staff of power taken from him by those who imprisoned him, and commands his servants to do likewise.

The Prince of Deception's true form is like that of a great gargoyle, some 12 feet tall, with an extended, muscular neck and a smiling face framed by long, pointed ears and lank, dark hair, and bat-like wings are furled against his powerful shoulders. He can assume other forms, however, from the hideous to the beautiful. Often the demon lord becomes so immersed in playing a role that he loses himself in it for a time.

Many of the cultists of Fraz-Urb'luu aren't even aware they serve the Prince of Deception, believing their master is a beneficent being and granter of wishes, some lost god or celestial, or even another fiend. Fraz Urb'luu wears all these masks and more. He particularly delights in aiding demon-hunters against his demonic adversaries, driving the hunters to greater and greater atrocities in the name of their cause, only to eventually reveal his true nature and claim their souls as his own.


This is Fraz-Urb'luu, and that is the kind of **** a Demon Prince sometime does.



See, I think your view of what 4e did is slightly skewed. They don't reduce them to what tools they use, they just clear up the motivations.

They didn't clear up anything, they *changed* it to something less elaborated.



Devils though want to control the world, killing people is fine if they are in the way, but it isn't the point. They are much more likely to go for schemes that obfuscate the truth, or set them up for more control down the line. They want souls to build the armies of hell, they seek out cultists and converts instead of waiting for them to show up.

This is true, yes.



This is why Succubus confuse me as demons, they are tempting souls from mortals.... why? They might manipulate a war or something, but they seem like they'd fit so much better into the Devil archetype, convincing people to see the world their way, gathering souls to fill up the armies ranks, they just fit naturally into those motivations instead of the motivations of destruction that I feel Demons embody.

Back in the day, when they were Demons, the Succubi's Modus Operandi was to use their charms to spread chaos.

They were the mysterious stranger revealing that the countess's son was actually the king's bastard, starting a succession crisis.

They were the mistress who told an husband hey could be together, if only his wife wasn't there... and a week later that wife was dead, killed by an husband crazed by lust.

They were the quest giver who just so happen to send adventurers to free a monster in the middle of the city.

They were the one who engineered a good cop going to the deep end by helping a criminal, so much so the only way to stop them said cop could see was to become as depraved and ruthless as them.

And then, once the persons had become chaotic evil on their own volition, the Succubi struck.

[Pronounceable]

The above is an alignment debate in disguise and I disapprove of it.
...
Back on topic, I like that brood of Pale Night all became demon lords and she ougtha be the Queen of Demons. That she's not acknowledged as such is the greatest injustice in the Abyss. How many layers are under her kids' rule again?

Somewhat offtopic but still better than an alignment debate; Zuggtmoy historically being the real baddie behind Elemental Evil cults is another neato thing about demons. It shows how lolrandom their plots can be. It's maybe the second greatest injustice that Lolth, kinda exact same gal but hotter, became so big while Zuggy languishes in relative obscurity.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The above is an alignment debate in disguise and I disapprove of it.
...
Back on topic, I like that brood of Pale Night all became demon lords and she ougtha be the Queen of Demons. That she's not acknowledged as such is the greatest injustice in the Abyss. How many layers are under her kids' rule again?

Somewhat offtopic but still better than an alignment debate; Zuggtmoy historically being the real baddie behind Elemental Evil cults is another neato thing about demons. It shows how lolrandom their plots can be. It's maybe the second greatest injustice that Lolth, kinda exact same gal but hotter, became so big while Zuggy languishes in relative obscurity.

I do like that Zuggtmoy and Jubilex both have starring roles in one of the published adventures.

[Unoriginal]

The above is an alignment debate in disguise and I disapprove of it.

That's not what I'm doing, though it could be why this discussion was started.



...
Back on topic, I like that brood of Pale Night all became demon lords and she ougtha be the Queen of Demons. That she's not acknowledged as such is the greatest injustice in the Abyss. How many layers are under her kids' rule again?

None? She isn't mentioned in 5e, to my knowledge.




Somewhat offtopic but still better than an alignment debate; Zuggtmoy historically being the real baddie behind Elemental Evil cults is another neato thing about demons. It shows how lolrandom their plots can be. It's maybe the second greatest injustice that Lolth, kinda exact same gal but hotter, became so big while Zuggy languishes in relative obscurity.

Lolth isn't "kinda exact same gal but hotter" at all. Zuggtmoy and Lolth are pretty different kind of demons.

Also, on related topic: Zuggtmoy got a pretty damn great illustration in the Mordenkainen's. Worth checking out.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Also, on related topic: Zuggtmoy got a pretty damn great illustration in the Mordenkainen's. Worth checking out.

It's nice to have them in MToF, but all the demon lords are copied directly from the appendix of Out of the Abyss. Stats and illustrations.

[Unoriginal]

It's nice to have them in MToF, but all the demon lords are copied directly from the appendix of Out of the Abyss. Stats and illustrations.

The illustration I'm talking about is the new one in the first chapter, not the one with her stats.

[gloryblaze]

The illustration I'm talking about is the new one in the first chapter, not the one with her stats.

The one with her and Juiblex was also already around, I remember using it in a roll20 OotA last year. Pretty sure it was in the OotA book but I could be wrong, OotA doesn't have an official roll20 conversion so I had to find all the art i used online

[Chaosmancer]

The above is an alignment debate in disguise and I disapprove of it.

I don't see this as an alignment debate, but in the effort to not offend people I can send my next reply via PM



Back on topic, I like that brood of Pale Night all became demon lords and she ougtha be the Queen of Demons. That she's not acknowledged as such is the greatest injustice in the Abyss. How many layers are under her kids' rule again?

I've vaguely heard of this Pale Night figure. Some sort of ancient Demon who was lost of killed in the time before the gods or something like that. Is Malcanthet or some of the other Demon Lords her children?

I thought official lore was that Orcus started out as a mortal (just as an example)