There's demons for Chaotic Evil and devils for Lawful Evil, but there doesn't seem to be an iconic infernal Neutral Evil.
I propose Revised Drow - An entire race of fallen *Foo who are each Evil Masterminds, entirely too capable of Xanatos Gambits/Roulette/Speed Chess.
(Does not include a link to tvtropes.com :D )
We need a proposed origin - Something undeath-like might fit. On the other hand, Rakshasha might also work - Aside from being obscure.
Ideas?
The Yugoloths/Daemons are the iconic neutral evil outsiders.
...They might work better if I had ever heard of them. :)
Monster Manual II
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;280353(Does not include a link to tvtropes.com :D )
off-topic, it's dot org.
Quote from: StormBringer;280381Monster Manual II
3e or 2e?
Anyway, if they're going to be iconic, a mention in any core book with a higher number than '1' is basically a miss on the 'Iconic' part.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;280368...They might work better if I had ever heard of them. :)
That's what the Wikipedia is for!
You have the same idea as you do in regards their motives: skilled manipulators. The problem is that it falls short in that I've always felt like NEs are the type of folks who aren't too picky about who they manipulate, and Yugoloths get the short shrift there. They're usually just described as the kinda mercenaries of the Blood War.
Good NE demons should be the most subtle and willing to mix with everyone. And I feel like they should also be fairly fragmented, each demon carrying out their own personal plans with little regard for their contemporaries.
Doesn't matter if I can find them on wikipedia - What matters is getting them into the core MM #1, so people know what to look up if that's what they want - If they aren't recognizable, they aren't iconic. :)
Good Dragons are no longer iconic in 4e (:
Let's not turn this thread into a 4e debate thread.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;2803863e or 2e?
Anyway, if they're going to be iconic, a mention in any core book with a higher number than '1' is basically a miss on the 'Iconic' part.
1st edition. Far, far better than the Fiend Folio, in my opinion. Although, the FF did have the tirapheg, so it has that going for it.
Nycadaemon and Mezzodaemon (the first Yugoloths) first appear in the AD&D1 Fiend Folio, if you aren't counting the module they appear in.
Quote from: StormBringer;2804101st edition. Far, far better than the Fiend Folio, in my opinion. Although, the FF did have the tirapheg, so it has that going for it.
Leaves me wondering why they haven't seemed to survive to today.
Or maybe...They're just so stealthily evil WotC missed them...
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;280420Leaves me wondering why they haven't seemed to survive to today.
Or maybe...They're just so stealthily evil WotC missed them...
I would guess they fell victim to the demons and devils purge of 2nd edition. They could have stuck with the yugoloths, but 'daemon' was probably too close for comfort, and they didn't really promote them in major products, anyway.
Still, I have an answer, so that's good. :)
(Even if 'Daemons' is just 'Demons' with an 'a' added - Could always call them 'Loths', for a tie-in...)
Well, if we are talking about Tiraphegs, then no, but Nycaloths and Mezzodaemons (and other Yugoloths) figure prominently in several 3e and 3.5e books (Book of Vile Darkness, MMII, MMIII, and I think some of these guys were standard by the time the Monster Manual 3.5 came out). Mezzodemons and canoloths (so far) appear in 4e as well.
They were relevant to Planescape where they were hired out as mercenaries to both sides of the Blood War if I recall correctly. I also believe that the various archdaemons were created as a defense mechanism by the night hags (who sold larvae to both side as well). (EDIT: Yep, a quick peek at thier Wikipedia entry confirms this to be true - SWEET).
Anyway, you could do a lot more with them because people have no expectations regarding them.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;2803863e or 2e?
Anyway, if they're going to be iconic, a mention in any core book with a higher number than '1' is basically a miss on the 'Iconic' part.
1E, actually. And by that definition, there are almost no iconic NE/NG/LN/CN monsters in AD&D 1E (unless you count Fiend Folio as a core book), since the original monster manual had none. (It's been suggested that this might be due to those alignments not existing at that time - as evidenced by Holmes D&D, which has a 5-point alignment system, and was presumably designed to reflect the current state of the AD&D project).
Quote from: StormBringer;280432I would guess they fell victim to the demons and devils purge of 2nd edition. They could have stuck with the yugoloths, but 'daemon' was probably too close for comfort, and they didn't really promote them in major products, anyway.
No, the daemons were still around in 2nd edition - that's when they were called yugoloths, just as the devils were called "baatezu" and the demons were called "Tanar'ri". According to wikipedia's yugoloth article, they didn't get their name switched back with 3rd edition, possibly because the whole demon/daemon thing is ludicrously confusing (especially at the table, when the two words are spoken...).
They appear to have quietly disappeared in 4th edition. Which only makes sense, given the revised alignment system; since the Devils are Evil, and the Demons are Chaotic Evil, there's no niche left for the yugoloths.
How about intelligent undead? Going by the 1E MM I have at hand, Liches are NE, so they would fit. Vampires are described as CE, but frankly, I think that's rather nonsensical - evil, sure, but why chaotic rather than selfishly neutral?
Quote from: Premier;280477How about intelligent undead? Going by the 1E MM I have at hand, Liches are NE, so they would fit. Vampires are described as CE, but frankly, I think that's rather nonsensical - evil, sure, but why chaotic rather than selfishly neutral?
Hmmm, it strikes me that individual vampires are unlikely to work together - if the feeding is sparse, they wouldn't want the competition, and if the feeding is plentiful then having too many vampires in one place would alert the humans to their presence, and that would never do. That's how I always justified it.
Quote from: Warthur;280472No, the daemons were still around in 2nd edition - that's when they were called yugoloths, just as the devils were called "baatezu" and the demons were called "Tanar'ri". According to wikipedia's yugoloth article, they didn't get their name switched back with 3rd edition, possibly because the whole demon/daemon thing is ludicrously confusing (especially at the table, when the two words are spoken...).
They appear to have quietly disappeared in 4th edition. Which only makes sense, given the revised alignment system; since the Devils are Evil, and the Demons are Chaotic Evil, there's no niche left for the yugoloths.
The entire cosmology has changed, with demons now having an elemental nature..The blood war is over, Asmodeus won.
But Mezzoloths are there in the 4E Monster manual, and Canoloths are in the 4E Manual of the Planes.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;280481The entire cosmology has changed, with demons now having an elemental nature..The blood war is over, Asmodeus won.
But Mezzoloths are there in the 4E Monster manual, and Canoloths are in the 4E Manual of the Planes.
Oh, interesting. What's the metaphysical basis for them this time? I know Devils are Asmodeus's fellow fallen angels and Demons are spawned from the elemental rift, but where do these guys come from?
Quote from: Warthur;280485Oh, interesting. What's the metaphysical basis for them this time? I know Devils are Asmodeus's fellow fallen angels and Demons are spawned from the elemental rift, but where do these guys come from?
Unfortunately I'm at work with no book and I can't tell you.
...But I think they are there included under the demon section. Near the end of D&D3 they presented different "generations" of demons besides the Tanar'ri, (the Obryith and Loumara) so maybe it's something like that.