Poll: Erinyes and Succubus -- Where do these women belong?

James Wyatt published an article today about Demons and Devils entitled "Soldiers of the Blood War".

In this article, he included 'Succubus' in the Demon section but omited 'Erinyes' from the Devil section. Erinyes were only briefly mentioned in the 'Barbed Devil' description, comparing relative power levels, but were otherwise completely left out of the article.

James Wyatt then included a poll at the end of his article asking "Succubus: Demon or devil?", despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon.

I wouldn't want James Wyatt to think that he could 'fold' these two female fiends into one monster without first hearing from the D&D Community, but rather than wait for his poll results I decided to run three polls about Erinyes and Succubus (and the offspring produced by Demons and Devils).

Before we proceed, however, a visual refresher.

Succubus...


Erinyes...




-----

ENOUGH ALREADY! GET ON WITH THE POLLS!

-----


Erinyes and Succubus: Who is a Devil and who is a Demon?



Erinyes and Succubus: Should they be distinctive or combined into one monster?



-----

ALU-FIENDS AND CAMBIONS


Lastly, in the past, Alu-Fiends have been the female offspring of Succubus and mortals, while Cambions are the more generic offspring of Demons and mortals. The "direct" offspring of Devils and mortals (not counting Planetouched Tieflings) hasn't really been detailed in a particular monster (per se). At best, there was the Half-Fiend Template in D&D 3.x Edition. It appears (at this point) that Demons and Devils both fall under the 'Type: Fiend' in D&D 5th Edition. As such, this next poll explores the importance of making the Demon/Devil distinction when it comes to Alu-Fiend and Cambion offspring.

-----


Alu-Fiends and Cambions: Offspring of Succubus/Demons and mortals or all 'Fiends' and mortals?


Can't they both be devil?
I think Succubi should be Devils and Erinyes should be either, with "Devil" making somewhat more sense. There's no reason whatsoever that they should be split such that one is a devil and one is a demon. Other than both looking like attractive fiendish women and being more indirect combatants, the two creatures don't have a whole lot in common. (At least in 3.5, Erinyes of both genders exist, but the iconic image of the Erinyes is a female).

Succubi have a very special role in the museum of fiends. Along with Imps, they're one of the very few fiend subtypes that has broader currency outside of D&D. The overwhelming majority of D&D fiends are creatures where I can't really tell if they're based on a specific mythology or if they were just created whole cloth for the game. (There's nothing wrong with either of those things, of course, I just can't tell.) That's because there really aren't a lot of widely accepted fiend subtypes. It's basically just Succubi (and their less famous brothers) and Imps. If you ask someone who is generally familiar with fantasy but doesn't have experience with D&D what a Gelugon is, they'll have no idea, since even if that's not just a nonsense word, it might as well be. If you call it an "Ice Devil", they'll probably be able to guess that it's icy and a devil, but that's about it. A succubus is different. That's a real thing. People know what that is.

The problem with a Succubus being a demon is that the iconics associated with Succubi fall pretty close to what devils are supposed to be like. A succubus is an insidious manipulator. It's not known for physical destruction. That's how Succubi work in fantasy fiction. That's not to say that there can't be any smart or indirect demons, but the succubus will always be a prominant thing in the game because it's so recognizable. (It's PG-13-ness also plays a role in making it stand out). Prominant demons and prominant devils should be creatures that exemplify what it means to be a demon or a devil, not weird exceptions to the normal MO of their species. That helps define what demons and devils even are. That's why I think that the succubus should be a devil.

As for Erinyes, they take their name and general form from the Greek Furies. The furies are associated with vengeance, which I can see getting them placed as either demons (if it's vengeance taken as a form of rage) or devils (if it's vengeance as justice taken to an extreme). I think the devils way makes the most sense, but if there's some kind of reverse quota thing that says that fiend types are only allowed to have one chick, maximum, then I guess they can be demons.

The primary argument for Succubi being Demons is, in my mind, that the great randomization algorithm that shuffled the deck and dealt out random fiendish things to the Devil side and the Demon side somehow ended up dealing succubi to the demon side, so inertia puts them there. If Succubi have to be demons for some reason, the best way to handle that is by altering Erinyes to be absolute paragons of everything it means to be a devil. The two creatures are naturally compared (because they are both ladies), and making the Erinyes incredible Devils at least makes the Succubus look demonic by comparison.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
James Wyatt then includes a poll at the end of this article asking "Succubus: Demon or devil?", despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon.

I wouldn't want James Wyatt to think that he could 'fold' these two female fiends into one monster without first hearing from the D&D Community, so rather than wait for his results, I decided to run three polls about Erinyes and Succubus (and the offspring produced by Demons and Devils).


These comments make me think you're not familiar with 4E.  So just for your information:  in 4E succubi are devils.  They're not the same thing as erinyes, which are still devils.  In this light, I see no reason to think that Wyatt's suggesting folding the two fiends together.  He's just asking whether the 4E or pre-4E take on the succubus is best.

But while we're on the subject:  can we get the singular right this time?  It's "erinys".
James Wyatt then includes a poll at the end of this article asking "Succubus: Demon or devil?", despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon.

I wouldn't want James Wyatt to think that he could 'fold' these two female fiends into one monster without first hearing from the D&D Community, so rather than wait for his results, I decided to run three polls about Erinyes and Succubus (and the offspring produced by Demons and Devils).


These comments make me think you're not familiar with 4E.  So just for your information:  in 4E succubi are devils.  They're not the same thing as erinyes, which are still devils.  In this light, I see no reason to think that Wyatt's suggesting folding the two fiends together.  He's just asking whether the 4E or pre-4E take on the succubus is best.

But while we're on the subject:  can we get the singular right this time?  It's "erinys".



As long as I can get my Planescapey fiends somewhere in the longrun, the decision won't bug me.  I just want the basic to be as generic as possible.  Instead of demons or devils, just a generic "Fiend" umbrella term.  Save the specifics for campaign settings.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
These comments make me think you're not familiar with 4E.  So just for your information:  in 4E succubi are devils.

Which is why said "despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon."

I don't consider the current edition of D&D to be 'traditional' yet. ;)

These comments make me think you're not familiar with 4E.  So just for your information:  in 4E succubi are devils.

Which is why said "despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon."

I don't consider the current edition of D&D to be 'traditional' yet. ;)



And that's fine.  I just don't think he's saying anything at all relevant to the erinys.
These comments make me think you're not familiar with 4E.  So just for your information:  in 4E succubi are devils.

Which is why said "despite the fact that the Succubus has traditionally been a Demon."

I don't consider the current edition of D&D to be 'traditional' yet. ;)

And that's fine.  I just don't think he's saying anything at all relevant to the erinys.

That's my hope.

Personally, I like www.mimir.net/essays/succubus.html" title="www.mimir.net/essays/succubus.html">this article from the old Planescape fansite about the differences between Erinyes and Succubi. It perhaps gives individual members of those races a bit too much society-shaping power, but it's a good way to differentiate between their modus operandi, and make them meaningfully distinct.
Come visit Dark Side of the Moon, the new home to the Nasuverse fandom!
I can think of a few places for them *eyebrows*
A Succubus tempts a man (or someone attracted to women) to ruin.
An Incubus tempts a woman (or someone attracted to men) to ruin.
They are manipulators as a means only, and always towards the end of leaving thier victim and all they hold dear a smouldering wreck.
It is more common than I would wish to note, that we see a person in a relationship with someone who is ruining them. Run with that for the Demon.
It brings about chaos and destruction.

The Erinyes should be brought closer to her origin as a punisher of transgressions. If we keep her(/his) aspect as a tempting fiend, then make them the domineering significant other. They don't ruin their victim, they often make them quite successful, but on their terms. They egg their target on to success, at the cost of the things they care about. Slowly removing the friend we once had and replacing him/her with either a cold hearted miser only interested in personal advancement, or a husk that, while wealthy in worldly things, no longer has the passion to enjoy them.
Combining the two concepts, we have a Devil that preys on weakness, especially desire and ambition, and uses those vices to drive a person to a state of power, influence and authority, but alos either leaving them broken and pliant (a great puppet) or twisting them to be a willing and eager agent of tyranny and oppression, amoral in their pursuit of their desire.

Just my take.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Erinyes, to me, have 2 jobs. Both which are more ddevil. They punish infernal oathbrakers and aid in the maintaince of order in devil tainted groups. And if doing the nasty keeps their target in line or in a vulnerable spot, so be it.

Succubus are demonic as their final goal in any act is to create desruction. They charm individuals and use them to create chaos and ruin.

The erinyes summons lesser devils and goes all Cha-Warlord on you in battle.
the succubus charms somone, usually the toughest enemy, and sends him in a killing spree.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think Succubi should be Devils and Erinyes should be either, with "Devil" making somewhat more sense. There's no reason whatsoever that they should be split such that one is a devil and one is a demon. Other than both looking like attractive fiendish women and being more indirect combatants, the two creatures don't have a whole lot in common. (At least in 3.5, Erinyes of both genders exist, but the iconic image of the Erinyes is a female).

Succubi have a very special role in the museum of fiends. Along with Imps, they're one of the very few fiend subtypes that has broader currency outside of D&D. The overwhelming majority of D&D fiends are creatures where I can't really tell if they're based on a specific mythology or if they were just created whole cloth for the game. (There's nothing wrong with either of those things, of course, I just can't tell.) That's because there really aren't a lot of widely accepted fiend subtypes. It's basically just Succubi (and their less famous brothers) and Imps. If you ask someone who is generally familiar with fantasy but doesn't have experience with D&D what a Gelugon is, they'll have no idea, since even if that's not just a nonsense word, it might as well be. If you call it an "Ice Devil", they'll probably be able to guess that it's icy and a devil, but that's about it. A succubus is different. That's a real thing. People know what that is.

The problem with a Succubus being a demon is that the iconics associated with Succubi fall pretty close to what devils are supposed to be like. A succubus is an insidious manipulator. It's not known for physical destruction. That's how Succubi work in fantasy fiction. That's not to say that there can't be any smart or indirect demons, but the succubus will always be a prominant thing in the game because it's so recognizable. (It's PG-13-ness also plays a role in making it stand out). Prominant demons and prominant devils should be creatures that exemplify what it means to be a demon or a devil, not weird exceptions to the normal MO of their species. That helps define what demons and devils even are. That's why I think that the succubus should be a devil.

As for Erinyes, they take their name and general form from the Greek Furies. The furies are associated with vengeance, which I can see getting them placed as either demons (if it's vengeance taken as a form of rage) or devils (if it's vengeance as justice taken to an extreme). I think the devils way makes the most sense, but if there's some kind of reverse quota thing that says that fiend types are only allowed to have one chick, maximum, then I guess they can be demons.

The primary argument for Succubi being Demons is, in my mind, that the great randomization algorithm that shuffled the deck and dealt out random fiendish things to the Devil side and the Demon side somehow ended up dealing succubi to the demon side, so inertia puts them there. If Succubi have to be demons for some reason, the best way to handle that is by altering Erinyes to be absolute paragons of everything it means to be a devil. The two creatures are naturally compared (because they are both ladies), and making the Erinyes incredible Devils at least makes the Succubus look demonic by comparison.



This is gonna sound strange and probably be unpopular, but why not move the Succubus into the Yugoloth/Daemon camp. As I recall, they were mostly physically weak (in comparison to demons/devils) but were of a very highly intelligent nature. The nuetral evil version would be both master manipulator for its personal goals  (either to acquire more power, or just the sheer thrill of destroying someone) and would allow it to collect souls to bargain with either devils or demons. Just my silly thought on it. Erinys, however, I think should be the daughters of Asmodeus, or just generically enforcers of the will of devil lords.
The separation and opposition of devil and demons has always been a bad idea IMO, it makes all of them less menacing.
Thank you alignment based cosmology. 
Erinyes are devils who punish oathbreakers.
Succubi should be devils (IMO) who seduce people to break their vows or to sell their souls.

The only reason people think they should be merged is because they are both portrayed as attractive mostly naked women.

IMO, demons should not even be identified as having identifiable genders.  Demons are utterly alien forces of chaos and destruction.  Devils, who are defined by their entreating and contracting with mortals for power and influence are more human-like and should generally have identifiable genders.  
The separation and opposition of devil and demons has always been a bad idea IMO, it makes all of them less menacing.
Thank you alignment based cosmology. 


No more than the seperation and opposition of Fantasy Nazis and Barbarian Hordes does. Because that's basically what the difference between devils and demons is.
Come visit Dark Side of the Moon, the new home to the Nasuverse fandom!
I think Succubi should be Devils and Erinyes should be either, with "Devil" making somewhat more sense. There's no reason whatsoever that they should be split such that one is a devil and one is a demon. Other than both looking like attractive fiendish women and being more indirect combatants, the two creatures don't have a whole lot in common. (At least in 3.5, Erinyes of both genders exist, but the iconic image of the Erinyes is a female). [snip]


This essentially.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
Gender shouldn't play a role for either of them.  They aren't a sexually procreating species and need no genetalia.  They appear as whatever gender they want.  There should be male appearing succubi and erinyes.

Portraying them as female is a holdover from the days when the hobby was male dominated. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Gender shouldn't play a role for either of them.


Gender plays a role for devils because they deal with humans in a social manner, and having a defined gender facilitates that purpose.

There should be male appearing succubi and erinyes.


I believe incubi are male succubi.  I'm not sure what a male erinyes would be, since there's really no mythological counterpart to the all-female Furies.
Gender plays a role for devils because they deal with humans in a social manner, and having a defined gender facilitates that purpose.



Again it is appearance that matters.  I would still argue that devils are ultimately genderless.  However I don't disagree with your assessment of why they appear to have gender.  Neither does that assessment invalidate my call for both female and male appearing devils.  Female gamers need to be engaged in the same way that male gamers are engaged by the art.

I believe incubi are male succubi.  I'm not sure what a male erinyes would be, since there's really no mythological counterpart to the all-female Furies.



For simplicity sake I think calling both "sexes" of tempter devils succubi is fine.  And it doesn't really matter what the origin of the erinyes is, it is simply imagining that a mythical creature in a game of imagination can also be male "appearing."

I get the feeling we're not really disagreeing, but you'd have to confirm.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Can't they both be devil?

Indeed.  This is my issue with the first question.  There is no way to vote for "Both being Demons" or "Both being Devils". 

I get the feeling we're not really disagreeing, but you'd have to confirm.


We funamentally agree.  I'd prefer male succubui to be caleld incubi only because that's an existing term that covers the concept.  I'd also prefer male erinyes not to be called "erinyes" simply because (i) mythologically, erinyes are only female, (ii) they have always been portrayed as female in the 40 years they've been in the game.  So I'd like to find a mythologically appropriate name for a male-appearing devil whose purpose is to punish pact-breakers.
Etymological trivia:  "succubus" is actually a masculine word.
Etymological trivia:  "succubus" is actually a masculine word.

Huh.  As in, "I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your daughter's wedding...on the day of your daughter's wedding.  And I hope that their first demon be a masculine demon."?
Yes, "masculine" is a word that was in The Godfather.
The initial vote (Erinyes and Succubus: Who is a Devil and who is a Demon?) has been updated with two additional options.

Re-vote at your leisure.
I can't understand why they shouldn't be one creature.  Are all succubi that dim-witted and non-resourceful that they can't help someone achieve greatness only to let them down and have their soul sold?  Can't succubi be more like the mythical Greek siren as well?  And can't they also have a place being the punishers of broaken oaths?  Why can't they have all these roles and more?  I mean, no one says: Here is an orc.  He is only a big burly meat chopping NPC.  No, they could be a wizard.  A shaman for more concentrated lore.  They could be a trap designer.  A miner.  A forger.  A ranger.  All this along with a fighter.  

It just seems silly to reinvent the wheel. 
Gender shouldn't play a role for either of them.  They aren't a sexually procreating species and need no genetalia.  They appear as whatever gender they want.  There should be male appearing succubi and erinyes.

Portraying them as female is a holdover from the days when the hobby was male dominated. 



It turns out that we still get pictures of Warforged, Shardminds and Wilden which appear to have a gender, so I do not see that Devils and Demons are going to be any different.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Succubus/Incubus are abyssal/demonic seducers, erinyes are infernal/devilish avengers.
It turns out that we still get pictures of Warforged, Shardminds and Wilden which appear to have a gender,




Wow, I bet the the males of those races (metal, crystal, wood) are never flaccid. 
It turns out that we still get pictures of Warforged, Shardminds and Wilden which appear to have a gender,

 


Wow, I bet the the males of those races (metal, crystal, wood) are never flaccid. 

Danny

I think it would be interesting to make them the same devil, only succubuses (succubi?) are the variant that betrayed their devil kin and changed sides in the Blood War, embracing chaos and elemental power. Keep all the load lore but add that element. It justifies why they're two fiends with the same rough M.O. and appearance who are different creatures. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

I think it would be interesting to make them the same devil, only succubuses (succubi?) are the variant that betrayed their devil kin and changed sides in the Blood War, embracing chaos and elemental power. Keep all the load lore but add that element. It justifies why they're two fiends with the same rough M.O. and appearance who are different creatures. 


But they don't have the same M.O. at all.  Erinyes don't have the first thing to do with sex.  They're enforcers and torturers (and not the kinky kind).

There is absolutely no reason to merge the two or even draw a connection between the two fiends, beyond "They both have boobs."  And I hope we can agree that that would have unfortunate implications on a number of levels.
I think it would be interesting to make them the same devil, only succubuses (succubi?) are the variant that betrayed their devil kin and changed sides in the Blood War, embracing chaos and elemental power. Keep all the load lore but add that element. It justifies why they're two fiends with the same rough M.O. and appearance who are different creatures. 


But they don't have the same M.O. at all.  Erinyes don't have the first thing to do with sex.  They're enforcers and torturers (and not the kinky kind).

There is absolutely no reason to merge the two or even draw a connection between the two fiends, beyond "They both have boobs."  And I hope we can agree that that would have unfortunate implications on a number of levels.



So because one tortures and enforces it can't also play the role of seducer and collapser of lives?  IMO, just because they both have boobs has nothing to do with it.  I simply don't see a need to have both.  One could do all of these jobs.  There is only one race of drow, yet they do all sorts of different things.
I feel like you could smash together any two fiends with that line of reasoning. If anything should be smashed together, it should be fiends with less clear senses of purpose and/or less cultural weight.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I really like the story of the Pact Primeval, so I like that there is a difference between angels, devils, and demons. The original original source material that they come from identifies angels that were good, and angels that were evil, these "evil angels" being very similar to the devils that we all know and love to skewer.

The word demon is in and of itself a comparatively modern term, not even a thousand years old, but generally anything that is referred to as a demon in old myths is just some malicious spirit (With varying degrees of power and danger.), which isn't the same thing as a Black Angel, or Devil. As what basically amount to "fallen angels," I think erinyes are where they should be. As for succubi, well, hard to say. Like the modern word demon, they are a fairly new creation. Now, they have inspiration, at least I think, in much older stories, but I can't trace any possible origin of the name back to anything older than early A. D.

I mean, I guess if you wanted to you could draw a kind of distinction between Oni, Demons, Devils, evil incorporeal outsiders, and things like that, I guess it just matters how you feel like categorizing it.

So because one tortures and enforces it can't also play the role of seducer and collapser of lives?  IMO, just because they both have boobs has nothing to do with it.  I simply don't see a need to have both.  One could do all of these jobs.  There is only one race of drow, yet they do all sorts of different things.



Aside from the fact that I agree with Cosmic in that merging two female archetypal figures probably isn't a good idea, they each appear previously and separately in different source material, long before D&D was a thing. It would be like merging the Basilisk and the Catoblepas. Sure, similar creatures, but they are in fact different and they do come from different places.

I feel like you could smash together any two fiends with that line of reasoning. If anything should be smashed together, it should be fiends with less clear senses of purpose and/or less cultural weight.



Like just removing the Qausit entirely and using the Imp?
It's my opinion that the two should be distinctly different creatures.  The succubus comes from the mythical being of that name, while the erinyes' origin is the three furies of Greek myth.  Based on this, it's clear that the succubus is an evil temptress while the erinyes punish the guilty.  Taking this to its logical conclusion, the succubus could be a freelance evil being, that is neither demon nor devil but also able to be both.

Succubus/Incubus: Succubi and Incubi are fiendish tempters.  They can be of any evil alignment, with lawful succubi being devils, chaotic ones being demons, and neutral ones being ? (Yugoloths?  Not sure how to fit them in).

Erinyes: Erinyes are tormentors of the guilty, which rather requires them to be lawful.  They are often sent to torment those who break oaths to gods, and any blood oaths, but they also enjoy tormenting those with guilty hearts or consciences (regardless of whether the person has actually done wrong).  Erinyes enjoy tormenting others, and are often employed by gods and devils (demons prefer to do the tormenting on their own whenever they can).

Frankly, I think this is the best solution.  There doesn't need to be two creatures that occupy the same conceptual space, that of fiendish temptress, just because demons are divided into demons and devils in D&D.  If that were so, then we'd need a Yugoloth version too.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I agree with MechaPilot.
We should see Succubi and Incubi as tempting demons/devils and I don't care whether they are more lawful or chaotic in their nature. One could argue for both sides, depending on whether the creature does it for cunning and planning or purely own pleasure.

Erinyes should be shaped in the idea of Furies and therefore be lawful. They do not necessarily have to be devils at all, they could be aspects of fury without falling into the realm of fiends.
They should not be sexually attributed at all since they are aspects of vengeance, anger and broken promises. One could argue that there should be male Erinyes as well and I would not oppose that idea ;)
The separation and opposition of devil and demons has always been a bad idea IMO, it makes all of them less menacing.
Thank you alignment based cosmology. 


I share your sentiment Monsieur. I really see no reason to segragate the fiend into 2 separate "races" (3 if you count yugoloths) based on alignment and plane of origin. All fiends would lie, steal, kill, corrupt, or commit whaever vile acts come into mind. Their reasons and motivations for doing them may vary but aside from that there's really no difference. I don't buy the whole concept demons are entirely about wanton destruction and  devils are all coniving and scheming infernals. I can accept fiends belonging or taking allegiance to certain factions. But complete opposition and enmity to another race of fiend simply because they are of a different spectrum of evil is pretty baloney.


No more than the seperation and opposition of Fantasy Nazis and Barbarian Hordes does. Because that's basically what the difference between devils and demons is.


That's not really an accurate analogy to D&D demons and devils. Not all barbarians hordes are necessarily evil. Some may raid and pillage but do it for their own survival. Nazis however are definitely evil since their social structure is based on fanaticism, tyranny, and prejudice. Unlike D&D demons and devils which are separate races of fiends segregated only by alignment and plane of origin.
The separation and opposition of devil and demons has always been a bad idea IMO, it makes all of them less menacing.
Thank you alignment based cosmology. 


I share your sentiment Monsieur. I really see no reason to segragate the fiend into 2 separate "races" (3 if you count yugoloths) based on alignment and plane of origin. All fiends would lie, steal, kill, corrupt, or commit whaever vile acts come into mind. Their reasons and motivations for doing them may vary but aside from that there's really no difference. I don't buy the whole concept demons are entirely about wanton destruction and  devils are all coniving and scheming infernals. I can accept fiends belonging or taking allegiance to certain factions. But complete opposition and enmity to another race of fiend simply because they are of a different spectrum of evil is pretty baloney.


Not really. They both believe that their way is the only true way, and both have no restraint about killing people who disagree with them. That there would be conflict between them is only natural.


No more than the seperation and opposition of Fantasy Nazis and Barbarian Hordes does. Because that's basically what the difference between devils and demons is.


That's not really an accurate analogy to D&D demons and devils. Not all barbarians hordes are necessarily evil. Some may raid and pillage but do it for their own survival. Nazis however are definitely evil since their social structure is based on fanaticism, tyranny, and prejudice. Unlike D&D demons and devils which are separate races of fiends segregated only by alignment and plane of origin.


Raiding and pillaging is definitely evil, dude. Why do you think Orcs and Goblins are almost universally evil? It's not because they roll into town and start giving people fluffy bunnies. ;)
Come visit Dark Side of the Moon, the new home to the Nasuverse fandom!

Not really. They both believe that their way is the only true way, and both have no restraint about killing people who disagree with them. That there would be conflict between them is only natural.


You know that's pretty much how every fiend thinks regardless whatever or whoever they are confronting. They may have their loyalty and allegiances to the more powerful ones but only out of fear or until they have mustered enough power and influence to usurp them. Any lesser beings, be it another fiend or not,  they won't hesitate to exploit or dispose of them if it suits their needs.


Raiding and pillaging is definitely evil, dude. Why do you think Orcs and Goblins are almost universally evil? It's not because they roll into town and start giving people fluffy bunnies. ;)


I never said raiding wasn't evil and I just merely stated why barbarian hordes do it. And like I said only some of them do and not all are considered evil. As for the argument of that opposite spectrums of evil must oppose each other or cannot co-exist is pretty weak or unfounded. Look at the Drow, they lie and kill their kind but they still thrive and show no sign of waning as a race. Regardless if one follows some twisted code or out of whim evil is evil no matter what angle you look at it.