So I noticed the ever so sly reference to Saul's lack of understanding when it comes to the succubi demons vs. devils issue. And the fact that he doesn't care because his main interest is making money.
Perhaps this has already been mention and even discussed on these boards, but I just started reading 2nd D and I missed any such disccusion.
Perhaps this is revenge for the Pathfinder's "wrong step," or perhaps Vaughan had it "wrong" when he wrote the adventure (he does write for 4e doncha know) and an editor was having a little fun.
At any rate, I did LOL.
I guess this takes a little 4e insider knowledge to get? Your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I heard about the whole wrong step bit but... *shrug* don't get you post.
|
In prior editions, succubi have been classified as demons. The 4E developers felt that the succubus role of seducer fit better into a LE mindset, and reclassified the succubi as devils. Paizo staff prefer the traditional definition, thinking of them more as psychotic rapists than clever seductresses.
In prior editions, succubi have been classified as demons. The 4E developers felt that the succubus role of seducer fit better into a LE mindset, and reclassified the succubi as devils. Paizo staff prefer the traditional definition, thinking of them more as psychotic rapists than clever seductresses.
I remember now, 4e made most of the demons into chaotic blobby monstrosities and the more humanlike and intelligent creatures were all made into Devils... I am curious did they do the same thing on the good side? Chaotic Good is a bunch of good blobby things and chaotic neutral is just a bunch of crazy monstrosities that don't care what they destroy?
I think the whole seductress thing could go either way, but I can see how the OP might think it's is a subtle jab at the 4e. If you've ever seen a guy get seduced away from his wife (or just wander) you'll know what kind of chaos that leaves in it's wake.
Succubi are still clever seductresses. Chaotic ≠ mindless.
I'm not sure what ≠ means but I I imagine it doesn't mean '=' so I agree, the internet is a product of chaotic activity.
I think the whole seductress thing could go either way, but I can see how the OP might think it's is a subtle jab at the 4e.
I don't think it's that subtle. There was much discussion about succubi becoming devils in 4e on these boards when it was first announced. The fact that the text goes into a lengthy explanation, even explaining that devils are the succubi demons' mortal enemies, makes it pretty clear. And then they say that Saul doesn't care, he just wants the money (something many have accused WotC of). Why even go into it all this unless you've got ulterior motives. And notice Mr. Jacobs did not refute my interpretation. I think it's pretty clear.
There's a Pathfinder Paragon Path in 4e with a power called, "Wrong Step," which many have interpreted as a jab at Paizo. I'm not sure that's as clear a jab as "pontificating" about the devil vs. demon issue.
In any event, I think it was all done in fun.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole seductress thing could go either way, but I can see how the OP might think it's is a subtle jab at the 4e.I don't think it's that subtle. There was much discussion about succubi becoming devils in 4e on these boards when it was first announced. The fact that the text goes into a lengthy explanation, even explaining that devils are the succubi demons' mortal enemies, makes it pretty clear. And then they say that Saul doesn't care, he just wants the money (something many have accused WotC of). Why even go into it all this unless you've got ulterior motives. And notice Mr. Jacobs did not refute my interpretation. I think it's pretty clear.
There's a Pathfinder Paragon Path in 4e with a power called, "Wrong Step," which many have interpreted as a jab at Paizo. I'm not sure that's as clear a jab as "pontificating" about the devil vs. demon issue.
In any event, I think it was all done in fun.
It was indeed all done in fun. Nor is it a subtle jab. It's pretty funny, though! :)
It was indeed all done in fun. Nor is it a subtle jab. It's pretty funny, though! :)
Ouch... I guess I'm just thick.
Good catch Chris.
I've met some pretty Chaotic professors with PhDs, for example.
What I want to know is, were they also clever seductresses?
So I noticed the ever so sly reference to Saul's lack of understanding when it comes to the succubi demons vs. devils issue. And the fact that he doesn't care because his main interest is making money.
Now that you mention it, it is there, and it is hilarious.
Now, how to keep that a secret from my players for all those months. If they learn that in second darkness, you might be able to kill wizards of the coast (in effigy, but still), they might ditch our Curse campaign and form a lynch mob (yes, we're all happy with 3e, and not at all impressed with wizards and their newest game)
Seesh, did you miss the part where the joke was meant in good fun?I don't plan on switching to 4e any time soon myself, but the amount of vitriol I see lobbed at Wizards on these forums is absurd. It's a different system, but a pretty good one in my opinion. There's a lot in it that I don't agree with, but there's a lot of good ideas. And there's exactly zero things wrong with making succubi devils. It's a change I don't personally agree with, but their modus operandi fits either demons or devils, and it seems a rather minor change to quibble about. Can we laugh at the joke and move on without turning this into a production?
Seesh, did you miss the part where the joke was meant in good fun?
Hint: We don't really want to kill wizards employees. To the guy who complains about people not seeing the joke, I hold up a mirror.
And there's exactly zero things wrong with making succubi devils.
If by zero, you actually mean "more than zero", then you're right.
Succubi are demons in D&D. Have always been. Changing decades of game history like that without a good reason definetly counts as something being wrong, unless it was done for good reason. And I don't see anything even in hailing distance of a good reason in that change.
I'm sorry, you're right; I was more vehement then necessary. I just do get very peeved about the 4E hate, or the idea I've often seen on these forums that Pathfinder is 'the true D&D', and 4E some kind of heathen blasphemy. I'd hoped, when James confirmed that it was a good-natured poke, that the worst of the vitriol would be deflected.
Do the succubi's methods work only for a Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil mindset. No. Seduction can be the tool of a demon as easily as a devil, in terms of 3.x.
For a newcomer to D&D, set Asmodeus next to Demogorgon, the iconic devil and the iconic demon. Then, show them a beautiful woman who achieves her wicked goals through guile, seduction, and temptation, steals souls, and the like. I'd give good odds that the newcomer would identify such a creature as a servitor of Asmodeus more readily than they'd guess Demogorgon.
In 4E, demons are meant to be beings of unbridled destruction, semi-Lovecraftian monstrosities that want to see the whole multiverse torn apart. Which has significant precedent in previous editions. Devils, meanwhile, are more of the suave, soul-stealing tempters. Which likewise has precedent in D&D so far. Under such categories, a succubus fits more naturally into the devil category than the demonic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Succubi are demons in D&D. Have always been. Changing decades of game history like that without a good reason definetly counts as something being wrong, unless it was done for good reason.
You know, when 4E was first being announced, and the "succubus issue" was one of the key anti-4E rallying points, I was kind of worked up about the issue myself. I spent several minutes before a session complaining about it to my group, only to be met with blank stares, and looks of "and...?"
My group's Scout shrugged and asks "So, will a knowledge check still tell me which kind of arrow to put through the (censored)'s eye?"
I have to admit, he made a pretty compelling point. Does it really matter which neighborhood in the (unpleasant place outside of the Imaginary "Real" World) she comes from, when the real problem is that she wants to eat your junk?
|
|
For a newcomer to D&D, set Asmodeus next to Demogorgon, the iconic devil and the iconic demon. Then, show them a beautiful woman who achieves her wicked goals through guile, seduction, and temptation, steals souls, and the like. I'd give good odds that the newcomer would identify such a creature as a servitor of Asmodeus more readily than they'd guess Demogorgon.
Exactly the point of the 4E developers, I believe. If you remove "tradition for tradition's sake" as a measuring stick, the reclassification makes a good deal more sense. Which is not to say that players are WRONG to believe in tradition, merely that it is valued more by some than others, and the "others," happened to have a large hand in the development of 4E.
Then again, line up Asmodeus and Demogorgon, and between them place a beautiful woman who happens to have bat wings, claws and pointy teeth, who wants to rip out your soul through your mouth (or elsewhere)? It gets a lot harder to figure out whose team she plays for.
In 4E, demons are meant to be beings of unbridled destruction, semi-Lovecraftian monstrosities that want to see the whole multiverse torn apart. Which has significant precedent in previous editions. Devils, meanwhile, are more of the suave, soul-stealing tempters. Which likewise has precedent in D&D so far. Under such categories, a succubus fits more naturally into the devil category than the demonic.
Not everyone agrees that alignment should dictate form or that seduction is incompatible with a chaotic alignment. I really don't think this is the appropriate place to debate this though.
Of course seduction is compatible with a chaotic alignment. Indeed, I said just that at the beginning of my argument. It is less compatible, however, with wantonly destructive eldritch abominations, which, in my understanding, is how 4E demons are classified.
Actually I find the use of alignment as the measuring bar of who's a demon and who's a devil to be a very bad stick in 4E. Since they have effectively made alignment fairly non-consequential. I still wonder why they left LG and CE and didn't just go with Good, Evil, and Unaligned....
In my mind, this is a bit like arguing vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream - it's a matter of personal preference. I personally don't care and most of the players I know probably aren't even aware of the argument or change.
This thread wasn't necessarily meant to rehash the demon vs. devil argument, which has already been discussed ad nauseum, but to point out Jacobs' clever poke in the adventure. However, I'm not one to suppress discussion as long as it remains cordial.
Oh, and Evilvolus made me LOL..."junk," tee hee hee.
In 4E, demons are meant to be beings of unbridled destruction, semi-Lovecraftian monstrosities that want to see the whole multiverse torn apart. Which has significant precedent in previous editions. Devils, meanwhile, are more of the suave, soul-stealing tempters. Which likewise has precedent in D&D so far. Under such categories, a succubus fits more naturally into the devil category than the demonic.Not everyone agrees that alignment should dictate form or that seduction is incompatible with a chaotic alignment. I really don't think this is the appropriate place to debate this though.
I would like to point out that devils being schemers and demons being wanton destruction (in 4E) is because they are devils and demons, not because they are evil and chaotic evil. The lack of scheming and seducing in demons is a (4e) demonic trait, not a 4E chaotic evil trait.
the idea I've often seen on these forums that Pathfinder is 'the true D&D', and 4E some kind of heathen blasphemy.
Well, I do think that 4e is D&D in name, while Pathfinder is D&D in spirit.
One of my main reasons for that is that old D&D stories wont' make any sense in 4e now.
Let's say I'm telling a guy (who only knows 4e, not other versions of D&D) about how my old wizard got trampled by a lamia, he'll be confused - as far as he knows, lamias are women that are comprised of dung beetles, how can they trample someone? He doesn't know about lion/woman lamias.
And I will probably be unable to finish the heroic tale about the band of liberators who battled the archons who wanted to defend order at all cost - he'll keep asking whether it was fire or ice archons, and won't understand why archons - chaotic evil creatures - would defend order. (And for the record: Making something called "archon" chaotic... I can only shake my head).
Don't get me even started on Eladin.
It might be great fore newbloods, but I'm not a newblood, I like the old stories. I like D&D's rich background. I don't like that they went out of their way to invalidate it in their new game.
For a newcomer to D&D, set Asmodeus next to Demogorgon, the iconic devil and the iconic demon.
Demogorgon is not the iconic demon. There is no iconic demon. They're demons. Children of the Abyss. Chaos gone bad.
Then, show them a beautiful woman who achieves her wicked goals through guile, seduction, and temptation, steals souls, and the like. I'd give good odds that the newcomer would identify such a creature as a servitor of Asmodeus more readily than they'd guess Demogorgon.
And witless fool he is, he calls her devil. Then, when she visits him, he things he's ever so clever, having bought a devilbane amulet, so he things he can dance beneath the blankets with her, with no fear of her life-draining powers.
So dies another fool who thinks that you can judge a book by its cover.
In 4E, demons are meant to be beings of unbridled destruction, semi-Lovecraftian monstrosities that want to see the whole multiverse torn apart. Which has significant precedent in previous editions. Devils, meanwhile, are more of the suave, soul-stealing tempters. Which likewise has precedent in D&D so far. Under such categories, a succubus fits more naturally into the devil category than the demonic.
Yes, I've noticed that. They like their little drawers, in 4e. Everything must fit into those little drawers of theirs, even if they have to use a rammer.
I'll stick to 3e and its more organic approach, and be satisfied in the inherent illogic of demons. They're supposed to be mere monstrosities, agents of pure destructions, chaos incarnate - and they are by not always fitting neatly into that drawer.
True Chaos obays its own system, and the lesser cannot see it, calling it randomness. ;P
|
|
Let's say I'm telling a guy (who only knows 4e, not other versions of D&D) about how my old wizard got trampled by a lamia, he'll be confused - as far as he knows, lamias are women that are comprised of dung beetles, how can they trample someone? He doesn't know about lion/woman lamias.
Pretty bad example, here. Running my Runelords group, I was setting up the group's first encounter with a Lamia Matriarch.
Me: "Ok, so you guys know lamias, right?"
Player: "You mean snake ladies?"
Me: "Err, no. In D&D, lamias are lion ladies, not snake ladies. But...umm...this one's a snake lady. You're supposed to find that fact worrisome."
Player: "Alrighty. Consider me properly worried."
Me: "That's not worried enough."
Players: "Oh. *gulp*"
I think my point is, if you and the newbie can't figure out what the other is talking about, then you're not trying very hard. Or maybe I didn't actually have a point, just an anecdote. I forget.
For a newcomer to D&D, set Asmodeus next to Demogorgon, the iconic devil and the iconic demon. Then, show them a beautiful woman who achieves her wicked goals through guile, seduction, and temptation, steals souls, and the like. I'd give good odds that the newcomer would identify such a creature as a servitor of Asmodeus more readily than they'd guess Demogorgon.
But set her between Geryon and Graz'zt... oh, I get it. In 4e, Graz'zt would be a devil, not a demon. Never mind; I get it now; it just took me a minute. I'm stuck in 1e-think.
|
Creative Director
|
For a newcomer to D&D, set Asmodeus next to Demogorgon, the iconic devil and the iconic demon. Then, show them a beautiful woman who achieves her wicked goals through guile, seduction, and temptation, steals souls, and the like. I'd give good odds that the newcomer would identify such a creature as a servitor of Asmodeus more readily than they'd guess Demogorgon.But set her between Geryon and Graz'zt... oh, I get it. In 4e, Graz'zt would be a devil, not a demon. Never mind; I get it now; it just took me a minute. I'm stuck in 1e-think.
A better comparasion would be Ballzebul (a giant slug) with Malcanthet (a beautiful seductress).
Having bestial devils and beautiful demons is good for the game, since it maintains variety. Otherwise, why not just have two monsters, one called "devil" and one called "demon"?
Having bestial devils and beautiful demons is good for the game, since it maintains variety. Otherwise, why not just have two monsters, one called "devil" and one called "demon"?
Oh, don't get me wrong; I've been playing with succubi demons and erinyes devils for far too long to abandon them now. I like them. I can see the 4e point too, though, even if I don't personally subscribe to it.
Succubi are still clever seductresses. Chaotic does not mean mindless.
I agree, but just to clear up a few things -- how would you emphasize the chaotic nature of a succubus to the players as compared to, say, the lawful nature of a 3.5 erinyes or pleasure devil?
|
Creative Director
|
Succubi are still clever seductresses. Chaotic does not mean mindless.I agree, but just to clear up a few things -- how would you emphasize the chaotic nature of a succubus to the players as compared to, say, the lawful nature of a 3.5 erinyes or pleasure devil?
I would have never introduced a pleasure devil into the game in the first place, for starters.
And in an encounter with an erinyes, she wouldn't be trying to seduce you as much as beat you up.
I agree, but just to clear up a few things -- how would you emphasize the chaotic nature of a succubus to the players as compared to, say, the lawful nature of a 3.5 erinyes or pleasure devil?
That's not so hard: a succubus will probably approach characters with pure wild sexual appeal (and a supernatural one, of course), which can be pretty subtle, nevertheless; whereas an erinyes may play on the character's emotions and feelings (mainly love). A character in an enrinyes' thrall might fall in love with her, and his love would force him into compromising more and more of his beliefs, as she manipulates him. A succubus' victim would engage into destructive and self-destructive actions while pursuing his object of sexual passion. Lolita would a human succubus type; I imagine a male Erinyes similar to the Viscount of Valmont. The key would be that sex and feelings are a tool for power and domination in the devil realm. The demon arena, though not necessarily a mere pile of oozing mindless brutality and claws, does not seem to revel on power and domination, just on the procuring of suffering and ruin.
I would have never introduced a pleasure devil into the game in the first place, for starters.
And in an encounter with an erinyes, she wouldn't be trying to seduce you as much as beat you up.
I agree with "pleasure devil" being a sort of oxymoron. But my average erinyes would probably try to trick my party blind (with subterfuge and sowing of doubt and mistrust) before pulling out that jagged dagger and rope of entangling!
Succubi are still clever seductresses. Chaotic does not mean mindless.I agree, but just to clear up a few things -- how would you emphasize the chaotic nature of a succubus to the players as compared to, say, the lawful nature of a 3.5 erinyes or pleasure devil?I would have never introduced a pleasure devil into the game in the first place, for starters.
And in an encounter with an erinyes, she wouldn't be trying to seduce you as much as beat you up.
I agree. When I saw the brachina, I immediately thought of it as the diabolic equivalent to the lilitu...which was irritating, not just because of the charisma score that was deific, but because it sort of cheapened the whole thing. Suped up girl devil to go along with the suped up girl demon.
Plus, it had mini-mechanics. Lifted straight from the succubus in the Blood War expansion set.
I play erinyes as both seducers and warriors. With 3.5, the difference between them and succubi was accentuated. They weren't just mechanical clones with a different alignment anymore. The succubus is much better at seduction, while the erinyes can handle being a bit more physical. Nonetheless, a hot body and charm person at will goes pretty far in seduction. And 20 Cha is nothing to sneeze at.
I think Shemeska the Marauder or Ripvanwormer wrote something about how erinyes would use their influence to institute taboos and restrictions on sexuality that I found interesting.
I imagine a male Erinyes similar to the Viscount of Valmont.
It was my understanding that Erinyes are always female. I thought Tyrants of the Nine Hells mentioned something along those lines. I also got the impression the mythical erinyes were female as well. (Of course I don't think they were devils so much as divine servants of retribution.)
There shouldn't be any seductive element to the erinyes in the first place. Since they're fluffed as fallen angels, and their name comes from the Greek Furies, their beauty really ought to be a side note. As James said, the erinyes aren't trying to tempt, seduce, or trick you. They are infernal warrior women, relentlessly pursuing the wicked to destruction and dragging their souls to hell.
I imagine a male Erinyes similar to the Viscount of Valmont.It was my understanding that Erinyes are always female. I thought Tyrants of the Nine Hells mentioned something along those lines. I also got the impression the mythical erinyes were female as well. (Of course I don't think they were devils so much as divine servants of retribution.)
That was always my understanding, although Exemplars of Evil featured a male erinyes. I suppose in a world of polymorph, our distinctions of gender are a little archaic.
There shouldn't be any seductive element to the erinyes in the first place. Since they're fluffed as fallen angels, and their name comes from the Greek Furies, their beauty really ought to be a side note. As James said, the erinyes aren't trying to tempt, seduce, or trick you. They are infernal warrior women, relentlessly pursuing the wicked to destruction and dragging their souls to hell.
However, there has always been a seductive element to erinyes, from 1e and later in Planescape. Eventually you have to decide whether or not the original mythology or the DnD mythology is what you go with. And like the original myths, DnD mythology evolves over time.
Myself, I don't think any creature with 14 Int and 18 Wis is going to be defined by a single role. Whether warrior, wizard or wanton, an erinyes will likely be doing whatever the Hell she is told to do. Whether that involves killing or copulating.
Erinyes in Golarion will always be female. So will succubi. We do have incubi in Goalrion, of course...good
there are some things that should never change :P
Unless alter self is involved.
Out of curiosity, are those Golarion incubi going to resemble those from the Demonomicon or are you going to bust out some new stats? I guess more important than the precise nature of the stats would be if they going to be seducers or the more martial inclined rapists that the Malcanthet chapter portrayed them as.
|
Creative Director
|
Erinyes in Golarion will always be female. So will succubi. We do have incubi in Goalrion, of course...good
there are some things that should never change :PUnless alter self is involved.
Out of curiosity, are those Golarion incubi going to resemble those from the Demonomicon or are you going to bust out some new stats? I guess more important than the precise nature of the stats would be if they going to be seducers or the more martial inclined rapists that the Malcanthet chapter portrayed them as.
We can't use the version that was printed in Dragon magazine. There ARE stats for incubi in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends, though. We'd most likely use them.
|
That's not so hard: a succubus will probably approach characters with pure wild sexual appeal (and a supernatural one, of course), which can be pretty subtle, nevertheless; whereas an erinyes may play on the character's emotions and feelings (mainly love). A character in an enrinyes' thrall might fall in love with her, and his love would force him into compromising more and more of his beliefs, as she manipulates him. A succubus' victim would engage into destructive and self-destructive actions while pursuing his object of sexual passion. Lolita would a human succubus type; I imagine a male Erinyes similar to the Viscount of Valmont. The key would be that sex and feelings are a tool for power and domination in the devil realm. The demon arena, though not necessarily a mere pile of oozing mindless brutality and claws, does not seem to revel on power and domination, just on the procuring of suffering and ruin.
Or,
an enrinyes would propose a special "reward" for doing a job. She would have a contract ready to be signed. If the job is done, she would give the promised reward. No more, no less.
A Succubus might have a job at hand but would give the reward anyway. Probably before the job is done. Afterwards the Rewarded will not be able to even contemplate doing job.
Out of curiosity, are those Golarion incubi going to resemble those from the Demonomicon or are you going to bust out some new stats? I guess more important than the precise nature of the stats would be if they going to be seducers or the more martial inclined rapists that the Malcanthet chapter portrayed them as.We can't use the version that was printed in Dragon magazine. There ARE stats for incubi in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends, though. We'd most likely use them.
I'm glad to hear that. The incubus in GR's Book of Fiends sounds more like a "demon lover" than the incubus in Dragon's Malcanthet article, and I must admit to preferring the demon lover concept over the more martial one from Dragon. (By "demon", I mean of course "demonic"/"being a demon".)
Something like the Dragon article version is still possible, but should not fall under the category of "incubus". There could still be a place for that sort of demon in Noticula's or Socothbenoth's realms.
Out of curiosity, are those Golarion incubi going to resemble those from the Demonomicon or are you going to bust out some new stats? I guess more important than the precise nature of the stats would be if they going to be seducers or the more martial inclined rapists that the Malcanthet chapter portrayed them as.We can't use the version that was printed in Dragon magazine. There ARE stats for incubi in Green Ronin's Book of Fiends, though. We'd most likely use them.I'm glad to hear that. The incubus in GR's Book of Fiends sounds more like a "demon lover" than the incubus in Dragon's Malcanthet article, and I must admit to preferring the demon lover concept over the more martial one from Dragon. (By "demon", I mean of course "demonic"/"being a demon".)
Something like the Dragon article version is still possible, but should not fall under the category of "incubus". There could still be a place for that sort of demon in Noticula's or Socothbenoth's realms.
I really liked the Dragon version, to be honest. Book of Fiends is solid stuff though.
But even if you can't use the stats, surely you can use your flavor? At least in general terms? There can't be a copyright on that, can there?
It is a real shame that all of your hard work with the Demonomicon issues is untouchable by you guys in your published stuff. Especially concepts like Malcanthet that are going to fade away with the new 4e paradigm. :(