| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 14:43:51
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130917
It looks like Succubi and Incubi will be thier own species, seperate from demons and devils. This opens them up to sooo many possiblities, from Lawful Succubi and Choatic Succubi, the return of Lilitu and Brachina's, Succubi that work for Yugoloths, Night hags, and Evil Gods instead of devils or Demons, or even a few renogades that end up serving Gods of Good like Sharess, Llirra, and Sune, shunting souls to bliss in the upper planes instead. I'm curious about what Erin M. Evins thinks about this. |
| 28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 28 Sep 2013 : 14:59:45
A Brachina is a higher form of an Erinyes. So technicly the changing look of the Erinyes would, if they had any attempt to "justify" it, also effect the apperance of the Brachina in a similar way. Yet there is no mentioning of a Brachina in the monster manuals and i dare to assume that they didnīt bother with solving the mess they created.
Edit:
They give us a "passion devil" in Monster Manual three, but no mentioning of a Brachina or any ties to them at all. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 28 Sep 2013 : 14:36:58
Maybe a catch all name for the succubi/incubi-who I have seen as the same demon with merely a female or male default form- should be something gender neutral, like carnal demon?
As for the erinyes, perhaps it can be retconned. They retain their goat legs,wingless look and also their winged, beautiful angel form. The former serve as a strike force and punishment crew against oath/deal breaking creatures, and the latter serve as infiltrators or something like it. The latter is seen as a lower rank of erinyes and the former can be a higher position?
Then again, there is a devil dedicated to pleasure and sex, the brachina(coincidentally is a gender neutral name) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Sep 2013 : 00:55:55
Curious, too, since chain devils were specifically listed in the SRD as Wizbro IP, I thought. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 12:26:31
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I think it's a dig at Paizo for turning Chain Devils into their own race.
Kytons were already their own distinct, non-baatezu species back in TSR days. Paizo just developed them further in that direction as a unique species. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 11:44:49
I think it's a dig at Paizo for turning Chain Devils into their own race. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 03:56:39
quote:
Therise
This strikes me as another weird "let's rewrite lore" just because sort of thing.
Succubi and Incubi are demons in real-life mythology and classically were demons all throughout 1E-3.5E editions. What's the point to making them a separate race? How does this "help" the game, by pulling them further from their classical roots in myth and lore? I think it's a bad idea, and it was one of the designer mistakes in 4E they got called on. They need to learn to add, not re-design or retcon things "just because" someone has a wacky idea.
Cambions, same thing. Restricting cambions to being the offspring of only succubi/incubi is a bad, restricting move. It limits player and DM choices rather than expanding them.
Agreed, wholeheartedly, with Therise and with Shemmy.
But remember that (A)D&D definitions for demon and devil and daemon, tanarri and baatezu and yugoloth, etc, were all rather contrived and arbitrary right from the outset. In common (pre-RPG) usage, few people would make much distinction between demons and devils and fiends, the words themselves were largely interchangeable synonyms, not technically precise terminology. Succubi, cambions, and all the rest could just as easily been declared any one or the other type, Gygax et al simple categorized these things along perceived 9-peg alignment characteristics, he was no more or less an authority on fiendish mythology as any other scholar over the centuries. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 03:47:24
quote:
I had actually come up with an idea for a race of fiends called the Chaste, who hated sex and those that practice it with all thier black hearts. They had all the holes on thier bodies, even thier nostils, sown up, they floating about the ground, and had massive claws. They would be always conservitely dressed, but prefectly and elegently. They sense thier surrounding via a sense they called Temprance, which has no human equivilant. Thier mere presence could cause impotence and miscarriages. They reproduced via virgin sacrifices.
That is just insanely kewl  . Where did you place them in the grand scheme of things? Or are they simply a means to spread woe amongst mortals? |
| Gyor |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 01:25:43
They need to create a common name for Succubi and Incubi before they can create Paragons of thier diabolical race. One idea how about Madams of Damnation?
Also I did not know Yugoloths were prudes, that's kind of cool, it gives a counter point to more sex loving fiends like Succubi and would explain why Succubi usually don't work for Yugoloths.
I had actually come up with an idea for a race of fiends called the Chaste, who hated sex and those that practice it with all thier black hearts. They had all the holes on thier bodies, even thier nostils, sown up, they floating about the ground, and had massive claws. They would be always conservitely dressed, but prefectly and elegently. They sense thier surrounding via a sense they called Temprance, which has no human equivilant. Thier mere presence could cause impotence and miscarriages. They reproduced via virgin sacrifices.
I also thought Cupids or Apsaras would make a good sex positive celestrial counter balance to the sex negative succubi. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 01:25:18
They need to create a common name for Succubi and Incubi before they can create Paragons of thier diabolical race. One idea how about Madams of Damnation?
Also I did not know Yugoloths were prudes, that's kind of cool, it gives a counter point to more sex loving fiends like Succubi and would explain why Succubi usually don't work for Yugoloths.
I had actually come up with an idea for a race of fiends called the Chaste, who hated sex and those that practice it with all thier black hearts. They had all the holes on thier bodies, even thier nostils, sown up, they floating about the ground, and had massive claws. They would be always conservitely dressed, but prefectly and elegently. They sense thier surrounding via a sense they called Temprance, which has no human equivilant. Thier mere presence could cause impotence and miscarriages. They reproduced via virgin sacrifices.
I also thought Cupids or Apsaras would make a good sex positive celestrial counter balance to the sex negative succubi. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 00:16:42
This is one of the few articles like this that I have actually liked the changes they are proposing. I greatly dislike the generic tieflings from 4e that they seem to be keeping. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2013 : 00:01:52
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I think they'd be much better served by going back to succubi as tanar'ri/demons.
I hope they go back to the tanar'ri/baatezu nomenclature. I found it easier to keep them straight that way, and greatly preferred those more exotic names to the bland (and religiously-charged) terms demon/devil. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 23:01:28
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Unless Shemmy in the vast amount of the 'loths information gathering undertakings can shed light into it further i would say alu-fiends are female cambions.
Going entirely off memory here, the classical Planescape conception was alu-fiends as the exclusively female progeny of succubi and mortal men, with cambions the male progeny of tanar'ri and mortal women. And different subtypes of cambion based on what type of tanar'ri was the father (marquis, baron, etc).
Devils were something else entirely, with female baatezu being sterile (except for the diabolic nobility). Off the top of my head, I don't recall any 2e details regarding half-fiends of baatezu descent, just tieflings. Likewise with 'loths no details on half-loths but definitely 'loth descended tieflings (even if sexual reproduction was considered an abomination among the 'loths).
3e altered (or simplified depending on your perspective) the situation with the introduction of the generic half-fiend template, and not really going into specifics as 2e had done. I'm of mixed opinion there, though I tend to mix the 2e and 3e details for my own campaigns (though my current campaign is set in the Pathfinder cosmos, and don't make me choose a favorite) |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 22:45:40
I must be confusing it with something else, perhaps another game system from years ago. I have all of the MC's and you're right about the male/female distinction of alu-fiends and cambions. This is gonna bug me until I remember where I got this notion from now. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 22:37:53
Monstrous Compendium Appendix for Planescape (lovely piece of work with every being having itīs own picture for presentation) states Alu-Fiends and Cambions are Tanar'ri. Furthermore Alu-Fiend are born out of the union of a Succubus and a mortal and are always female. For Cambion, tanar'ri and human female.
At a quick glance i canīt find any mentioning of male alu-fiends or female cambions. Unless Shemmy in the vast amount of the 'loths information gathering undertakings can shed light into it further i would say alu-fiends are female cambions.
I can see why they want to make the succubi a seperate group, it pleases 1/2/3e and also appeases the 4e group if they go that rout. Mind you, pleasing and appeasing in the way of not declaring one form incorrect but rather calling all incorrect and delivering a middle ground where both sides of the coin can be happy with, to a degree. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 22:19:30
It's unfortunate that they're going this direction with the succubus/incubus rather than just restoring the 1e/2e/3e continuity into 5e.
4e was marked by a bevy of seemingly arbitrary and at times bizarre retcons and changes to D&D lore. Radically changing succubi (among many other things, especially regarding the planes) in 4e did not go over well at all with fans, and more than anyone else, WotC should realize this. With 5e they have the chance to try to repair the damage done, but trying to awkwardly straddle between the 1e/2e/3e continuity and a mutually exclusive 4e outlier isn't the best idea. It's going to end up pleasing neither the fans that they lost in 4e, or the fans of 4e material.
I've been on board with much of the 5e attempts at restoring prior lore where it concerned the planes, but this one tries a bit much IMO to keep in play one of the most criticized 4e retcons. I think they'd be much better served by going back to succubi as tanar'ri/demons. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 21:13:47
How so? Alu-fiends were specific to succubi (and incubi didn't 'exist' in previous editions). Are there no female cambions? For some reason, I have this nagging thought that there were occasional male alu-fiend type creatures. Maybe it was from some article or maybe I'm confusing the idea with something not DnD. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 21:05:22
The male counterpart is a Cambion. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 20:51:55
Well, it's not FR, but Iuz from GH setting was a cambion born of Grazzt and Igwilv. He later became a demigod through a method of his own making. Personally, I prefer all cambions be spawned from demons (as originally intended) and WotC simply create counterparts for those born of devils, daemons, demodands, and yugoloths. That's just me though.
Just a side thought...but wasn't there a male counterpart to the alu-fiend? Or am I (most likely) getting that confused with something else? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 20:38:14
oh, one of the things I am not jazzed over is the fact that they are saying their offspring are always cambions. What happened to the alu-fiend that was specifically a female offspring of a succubus? I'm certain if we look, we'll also find cambions in past lore that aren't born of a succubus. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 20:35:21
I look at it like what they did with angels in 4e and saying that not all angels are "heavenly angels". I don't necessarily disagree with that angel lore (i.e. there can be an angel of death serving an evil god). Here we have succubi, who don't quite fit the mold of extremely lawful as devils are supposed to be... nor did they fit the mold of chaotic strange looking warrior that demons are supposed to be. This could easily be the case of misunderstood lore in previous versions... and it doesn't really break anything. If you were attacking some demon's lair that had succubi in an earlier edition... those were just succubi that like the chaos of the abyss. If you were attacking some devil's stronghold that had succubi in 4th edition, well, those were just succubi that were more lawfully aligned.
To Lord Bane's point, one thing they should definitely focus on if they do this is the "leaders" of the succubi (and there should be several and they should be enemies). Also, they would really need to focus on their actual role/purpose in things.. how they came about... why they are one of the few beings of the lower planes who isn't alignment focused, etc... |
| Foxhelm |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 19:07:35
Well, it's just that the idea of Succubi/Incubi being multi-fractional means the idea of the beings to seduce people to sign up with the devils will be the S/I now instead of the Erinyes.
So if this occur, what role does the Erinyes take. Now you either have the beastly goat legged ones or the diabolical angels ones. So one is the idea of the Erinyes acting like legbreakers. Another as the devil's police/spies/enforcers for the humans who sign Faustian Contracts. Or as torturers like their ancient myths. Or as the Army Rangers or Navy Seals of the Nine Hells! |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 18:42:19
I dislike how they changed the Erinyes for 4e, especially visually by turning them into a small female version of a shocktroop devil which is what? A simple ripoff of Pit Fiends artistic wise.
The whole asmodean move of 4e is one executed without an inch of respect for prior lore established and it ruined alot of flavor that gave things uniqueness. They did trash the planar lore build up from prior editions just to justify their new mechanics and introduce the point of light setting which in turn shoved the Planescape setting into oblivion by destroying the basis of it, the cosmology.
Sorry but i canīt help it but feel utter distaste for it. Authors works helped to mend the divide but the whole concept in first place was a very bad idea. Personal opinion, you are free to disagree with me and my dislike of 4e cosmology and the planes.
I see your point Gyor and i agree it is the best bet to get out of that particular mess in a reasonable way, not perfect but better than what we have now. This now leaves the question what they make of the leader of the succubi when they are made a seperate race, promotion to godhood? Degradation to first among many? They have to clarify that aswell and they better do it, we had enough of missing explanations for things with 4e, we donīt need more.
Foxhelm, when we look at what D&D offers in mythology terms and how they changed it to fit their setting i wouldnīt count canon to the roots of mythology as given. The Hells can send other fiends to collect payments, Erinyes are not the sole thing they have in that regard and the way you described it goes right against how Erinyes are shown in 4e. They can do the "legbreaking" but the way they are displayed they fail utterly at the flesh, mind and soul part. Mind you, 4e has the Succubi for that, the Erinyes were moved from there. How they were shown in editions prior to 4e it could fit your words but when it comes to 4e it misses the point. Going the mercenary route for Succubi and Incubi is the only way for them to keep the Erinyes as they are and keep Succubi with the Baatezu, anything else is contradicting yet again lore and the need for more changes to fit.
|
| Foxhelm |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 18:13:49
One, Inccubi and Succubi as a separate multiple fraction fiend does work with the history as it explains both them working for demons for 1-3.5rd and devils for 4th... as well as explain quirks like pleasure devils in 3.5rd and succubi working for demons in 4th. Also they are seducers and Decievers, so they could lie about their allegance.
Also while Erinyes have been used as the sexy counterpart of the Succubus for the devils in pre-fourth edition, there root mythology are as demons of vengeance, especially of false or broken oaths. Basically if Payback is a Bitch, Erinyes are the bitches who pay you back! A good role for them using mythology is being the legbreakers in the Mafia for the devils. They help collect the payments on the Faustian Contracts the Archdevils and Pit Fiends have, and if you don't pay... they take payment from your flesh, mind and/or soul.
Thoughts? |
| Gyor |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 18:07:56
Given the FR lore we have now, including post spell plague and that we know its not going to be retconned away, I believe Succubi/Incubi and thier variants declaring independance and playing the role of mercs, is the right way forward for the succubi's future.
And when I suggested some of the succubi race could serve Sharess I was in fact refering to Divine intervention. |
| Therise |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 18:07:11
This strikes me as another weird "let's rewrite lore" just because sort of thing.
Succubi and Incubi are demons in real-life mythology and classically were demons all throughout 1E-3.5E editions. What's the point to making them a separate race? How does this "help" the game, by pulling them further from their classical roots in myth and lore? I think it's a bad idea, and it was one of the designer mistakes in 4E they got called on. They need to learn to add, not re-design or retcon things "just because" someone has a wacky idea.
Cambions, same thing. Restricting cambions to being the offspring of only succubi/incubi is a bad, restricting move. It limits player and DM choices rather than expanding them.
|
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 16:16:31
Donīt get me wrong, i am not against Succubi/Incubi taking a special role. I just want to see lore getting done some justice and here i speak of the lore prior to 4e.
As for the Cambions, i am strongly against making them bound to just Succubi/Incubi. Any fiend offspring with a humanoid should be considered a cambion unless stated otherwise by lore. I hate how they made tieflings just baatezu bloodline in 4e, it took away much flavor and narrowing cambions to mere offspring of succubi and incubi is again cutting down on it. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 15:26:31
I don't like it. As LB said, they can work for anyone they want anyway (one was actually a lover of a Red Wizard in an old novel if I recall correctly...and she was loyal to him) and I don't like the idea of changing the old lore for something new...THAT'S one of the things that landed WotC in hot water in the first place. *Sigh* here we go again.
Okay, I may change my mind about this one as I'm beginning to think that having a separate race of fiendish tempters may be a decent idea. Their 'job' is to provide larvae for the lower planes and, in that regard, they become similar to the night hags...but better looking! 
My main concern is having to retool over 3 decades of prior lore to fit the new model (which I despise) but I think the work will actually be minimal. What I DO NOT LIKE is changing cambions to being (strictly) the offspring of succubi/incubi. That means that Iuz from Greyhawk has to be completely rewritten (which is total BULL, IMO) along with any other lore that may center on cambions in the various settings.
At least they are compiling data to see if their ideas will be well received. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2013 : 15:09:12
Succubi and Incubi do not need to be a seperate race to work for evil deities or other evil creatures. They were demons in the editions prior to 4e and their loyalty as a demon is not always with the Abyss but rather can be with anyone who appears to them be a better chance for power, you could have them work for someone else before if you made the effort to explain it.
I do not see them as agents of "good" and they should not be watered down to such an agenda aswell. They are evil and as fiends, redemtption is very unlikely unless divine intervention happens.
With them being freed from the baatezu move of 4e i want the Erinyes (sorry Mrs. Evans, couldnīt resist it ) to be the role again they had as counterparts of the Succubi as temptresses and not the horrible move of making them something else in 4e.
Lilitus and Brachinas are just higher forms of Succubi and Erinyes, or atleast they were back in 3e.
|
|
|
