D&D breaks down demons as Chaotic Evil and devils as Lawful Evil, but outside of D&D, what are the differences between the two?
Do any other RPGs separate Demons from Devils?
From a myth perspective, is there any difference?
Of course it varies depending upon the source. Many have devils above demons in a hierarchy. Some have devil as singular, demons as plural. In some, all devils are demons but not all demons are devils, again hinting at the hierarchal relationship.
I think the most differentiating characteristics consistently held--and you will find this in D&D as well--is that on the whole, demons are more brutish while devils are more cunning.
To my limited knowledge, the devil was always only a singular figure prior to DnD, and that all media portraying devils as a race of being is derivitive of DnD.
As for demons, they have pretty much always been the gods of enemy cultures that are not our gods, so they must be demonic bad guys.
Devils predates D&D, I think. Look at the Jersey Devil (and the hockey team). Blue devils are some sort of sports team as well.
I do think it was mostly interchangeable, but I think devils are always evil, while demons are not always so, sometimes more like goblins. Maxwell's Demon, for instance.
OTOH, I have seen (outside of D&D) that devils are fallen angels, while demons were either always evil or just beings from other religions.
And as mentioned, there is a difference in personality. Devilish grin for instance means charming in a vaguely sinister or sleazy way, while demonic generally means brutal.
What is the difference between a saint and a demi-god?
Sorry - I mistakenly thought this was about gaming.
The two words have different etymologies.
Demon, or Daemon (Latin) or Daimon (Greek) generally refers to an evil spirit although in the Greek context can actually refer to an inner genius.
Devil, which is a later derivation from the Latin Diabolos, means to slander or attack (pertaining to a false god figure), and is generally more associated with a singular Satan figure.
In D&D terms there is obviously a distinction between Devils/Demons based on Alignment, although I like to interpret the Lawful Evil aspects to suggest that there is only really one Devil who rules over the other servitors through brutal coercion and obedience. The Demons on the other hand have no power structure beyond might makes right.
As per popular (local) knowledge, there's only one Devil, and Demons serves him.
Otherwise, 0.
Quote from: JeremyR;872664What is the difference between a saint and a demi-god?
You're ratified as a saint after death, you're born a demi-god.
In Witch Hunter, Devils are either angels that fell to earth with Lucifer or who have otherwise aligned themselves directly with the Adversary (Lucifer, Satan, old Nick, etc.). Daemons are ancient entities, perhaps even presaging the whole biblical conflict, that are independent agents. The might be evil, and thereby serve the ends of the adversary (though on their own terms), or perhaps neutral in the whole conflict. Some might even seem benign or helpful if it serves their purposes.
So devils are interested in corruption and turning one to the service of the Adversary, while a daemon is in it for itself.
Tom
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872702As per popular (local) knowledge, there's only one Devil, and Demons serves him.
This is the general consensus of Catholic theology; the Fourth Lateran Council speaks of "the Devil and the other demons", and both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the latest edition of Denzinger (a standard reference work containing official theological documents) have indices that include "Demons" as plural and "Devil" as singular. However, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia does mention that the term "devils" can also be used as a synonym for "demons".
In Indo-Iranian religion, the ahuras are good and the daevas are bad but a little ways away in vedic religion the devas are the good guys and the asuras are the malevolent ones. Deva and divinity share a common root related to shining or brilliance. Deus, Zeus, theos, dios and a bunch of other words related to god or spirit share the this root. Asura has been connected with rulership or lordship in early Ural language. You'll see similar words spread even into proto-norse languages where the gods are called aesr and nsuras.
Devil comes originally from the Greek for accuser or slanderer (diábolos) while demon means a spirit or divine power. There's no implication of evil at all. In fact the word for happiness is eudaimonia, which literally means good spiritedness.
One religion's good spirit is another's malicious one and the words often connect with a variety of religious concepts. Things also get muddled as people borrow concepts and make mistakes with holy texts. For example the fall of Lucifer in Christianity is based on a text in Isaiah that's actually about the fall of a king of Babylon. Then you add in some later works that claim to be by Enoch which spend a lot of time developing a pantheon of angels and demons and the Greco-Roman gods related to Venus (heōsphoros or light bringer) get connected with diabolus as Christianity spreads through the Roman empire.
The Epistle of Jude in the Bible even directly quotes from this falsely attributed Book of Enoch. The early Christian church was aware of the Book of Enoch and believed it was authentic. To this day Orthodox Christians invoke some of the Angels from the Book of Enoch, so it's had a lasting influence. The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches still have the book as an official part of their Bibles.
In my games set in my setting The Enshrouded Lands, devils are fallen angels, and demons are fallen pagan spirits. Devils are more likely to be physically very similar to attractive humans; demons might well be monstrous in appearance.
I think it's far too hasty to say the singular devil is *the* answer. Even if that's how it's conceived of in one religion--hell, even if that's how it's conceived of in every religion, that's still an ass-ton of devils, plural, if each religion potentially has its own devil.
Quote from: Lunamancer;872752I think it's far too hasty to say the singular devil is *the* answer. Even if that's how it's conceived of in one religion--hell, even if that's how it's conceived of in every religion, that's still an ass-ton of devils, plural, if each religion potentially has its own devil.
"The devil" is an invention of monotheistic religions that preach that other spirituality is wrong. The devil is in fact associated with not believing in Christianity or Islam, the two religions that use the devil, as a way to vilify others with a neat supernatural label. Hence you find many early Christian dramas where the bad, evil and misled people are all being led astray by their religion's devil.
Judaism shares roots with those religions but doesn't do the devil thing.
As was pointed out earlier, while demons in Christianity are similarly like minor servants of their devil, they're generally also vilified and lumped in with the "everything not Christianity is evil and part of anti-Christianity, personified and perhaps actively led astray by the Chrisitan anti-Christian devil and his demons." The devil is of course also Lucifer, the fallen angel, or in Islam some fallen djinn or something.
Meanwhile, for most of the rest of spiritual humanity, including in its origins, there are "spirits" and "spirit" in general, which may have positive or negative qualities, but are allowed personality and non-binary morality. Before the binary religions, spirits tend to be more just aspects of the spiritual universe and not the "not Christian therefore evil" that claims that the only thing going on is all about its religion.
So, the D&D devil & demons are all very distinctly Christian-derived, and don't really map to other religions well at all except perhaps to Islam. Except from inside a Christian or Islamic perspective, in which case they'll do their usual thing of insisting everything is pre-invented by their God and so fits neatly into their black-and-white moralizing cosmology.
Quote from: JeremyR;872664Devils predates D&D, I think.
So does our calendar, I hope.
Quote from: Spinachcat;872656From a myth perspective, is there any difference?
'Devil' comes from the Indo-European 'Deva'. (EDIT: See NathanIW's post above, treating 'diabolos' and more.) Iranians regarded the Ahuras/Asuras as good, the Devas as bad; the Indians used the opposite nomenclature. One theory as to the origin of this situation can be found in
The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong.
Demon or Daemon comes from Greek usage referring to a "guardian angel" or "voice of conscience" kind of spirit.
The Devil in Christianity seems to owe something to the Zoroastrian Ahriman, which may also have influenced the Buddhist concept of Mara the Deceiver.
In Judeo-Christian appropriation, the terms are interchangeable and refer alike to fallen angels (rebels against God), of whom Satan/Lucifer (seen in the Bible under the former title-name as a loyal servant of God) is the chief. In the New Testament, it's usual to find "the Devil" in reference to him, "demons" for the rest. Christians have been prone to regard "pagan idols" as devils/demons when not dismissing the pagan gods as just made-up figures.
Quote from: Phillip;872896'Devil' comes from the Indo-European 'Deva'. (EDIT: See NathanIW's post above, treating 'diabolos' and more.) Iranians regarded the Ahuras/Asuras as good, the Devas as bad; the Indians used the opposite nomenclature. One theory as to the origin of this situation can be found in The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong.
Demon or Daemon comes from Greek usage referring to a "guardian angel" or "voice of conscience" kind of spirit.
The Devil in Christianity seems to owe something to the Zoroastrian Ahriman, which may also have influenced the Buddhist concept of Mara the Deceiver.
In Judeo-Christian appropriation, the terms are interchangeable and refer alike to fallen angels (rebels against God), of whom Satan/Lucifer (seen in the Bible under the former title-name as a loyal servant of God) is the chief. In the New Testament, it's usual to find "the Devil" in reference to him, "demons" for the rest. Christians have been prone to regard "pagan idols" as devils/demons when not dismissing the pagan gods as just made-up figures.
Actually the more simple explanation for the origin of devil is the latin diabolus. (In other eurpean languages the lineage is more clear: Diavolo, Diable, Diablo). The latin diabolus is in turn a direct transliteration of a greek term that means roughly "slanderer" and it's used to translate the biblical term satan (adversary, accuser).
I'd rather belive in some linking bwtween demon and Deva, as the greek term was kinda broadly used for supernatural beings.
Back to the question on topic, I don't think there's ever been a rigurous distinction between the terms in the christian tradition.
As a curiosity, in italy we have the term diavolo (pl. diavoli, devils), demone (pl. demoni, demons) and the variation "Demonio" (just singular, used for Satan as an alternative to il Diavolo).
Quote from: Phillip;872896The Devil in Christianity seems to owe something to the Zoroastrian Ahriman, which may also have influenced the Buddhist concept of Mara the Deceiver.
Christianity also preserved another artifact of the interplay between Hebraic and Iranian religion: hell as eternal punishment. And it's association with the evil force. They even have a common eschatology in terms of the devil/ahriman both ending up in the torture chamber at the end of days. As well, the conquests of Alexander through to the Roman empire was an interesting process as the Tanak translated into koine Greek ends up rendering sheol (which just means the grave) as hades. So you end up importing ideas of hell or a bad afterlife into Christianity from more than one source.
That said, my favorite demons are the ones from Thai Buddhist art.
(http://i.imgur.com/WQuR6HQ.png)
Got too much bad karma? Get in the stew for a few million years! That'll learn ya!
The different ideas of hell in Buddhism show both a startling lack of creativity and a complete running away with ideas that makes it a lot more enjoyable than a simple lake of fire. There's freezing cold hell, hell where you get reborn again and again as a person with an animal head and get slaughtered for meat by blue skinned demons. Hell where you get made into stew over and over.
Great times. Even if it is a rather late development in Buddhist thought and sort of cuts out the pathos of repeating life in this world over and over again being bad enough to want to end the cycle forever and replaces it with a cheap traditional religious threat of torture after you die.
In my own game the gods are just powerful immortal magical humanoids that are like 10-12 feet tall. Demons are the souls of anyone who is killed by magic mixed up in the blender that is Chaos. Then there are some other gods which I just full on stole from Lovecraft and his friends. The anthropomorphic gods tend to be sought out by humans for worship because they really are the only thing standing between humans and chaos and madness. While the majority religion of the largest city that's been come across is about the worship of an elder thing, the players have had no problem seeing him/it as someone/thing they can really work with and have largely been doing his/its work and calling it good.
Quote from: Korgul;872905Actually the more simple explanation for the origin of devil is the latin diabolus.
Whence that? Latin is a new kid on the block compared with Avestan and Sanskrit! In any case, it seems to me more likely that multiple lineages contributed to the eventual Western concept and modern English word than that there was a simple linear process.
Quote from: Phillip;872924Whence that? Latin is a new kid on the block compared with Avestan and Sanskrit! In any case, it seems to me more likely that multiple lineages contributed to the eventual Western concept and modern English word than that there was a simple linear process.
Yes, Latin is newer and has a much more direct influence on english language than Sanskrit. In the specific case of the word devil the various mutation from diabolus to devil are quite documented, and the word diabolus had clear origin in a greek word that designate a concept quite unrelated to Deva.
Le'ts not forget the Roman festival of Di Manes (the deceased) known as Feralia, which followed Parentalia, a lengthy period of time in February in which ancestors were revered in a manner akin to household gods. These ancestral dead are where the D&D Manes and lemures derive from. Historically I've generally been under the impression that the appearance of demons was part of the Christianization of Rome, as older pagan beliefs were subsumed into the Christian baggage about evil beings which derived from older sources such as the devas, asuras, Ahriman and other concepts....Di Manes became the demons, another one of the "other" that was the demonization (ahem) of pre-Christian belief systems.
Quote from: Spinachcat;872656D&D breaks down demons as Chaotic Evil and devils as Lawful Evil, but outside of D&D, what are the differences between the two?
Do any other RPGs separate Demons from Devils?
From a myth perspective, is there any difference?
Outside D&D the two words are synonymous. While etymologically derived from two different words for "accuser" and "spirit," the two nowadays just generically mean evil spirits. In Christianity, the Devil is the big bad evil guy and demons are his servants. Otherwise, there is no difference.
Also, D&D introduced "daemons" (yes, a variant spelling of demon, kudos for uncreativity) to fill the neutral evil spot on the alignment chart. They're more popularly known as "yugoloths" and they have always been boring and played second fiddle to demons and devils.
I think that early D&D was clearly riffing off medieval ideas of Demonic Hierarchies; if you look at medieval grimoires like the Goetia or the Book of Sacred Magic of Abramelin, there are lists of demons, their titles (there are demon Kings, Dukes, Marquis, Counts, Knights, etc.), and lists of the demonic armies under their banner.
This was the source of inspiration, in a more unsullied form than in most D&D, for my demonology material in Dark Albion (http://www.dcrouzet.net/heroes-witchery/?page_id=206).
The distinction between demons and devils in D&D happened as a result of the two-axis alignment system. I don't think that this distinction was based on any historical understanding at all.
Quote from: camazotz;873017Le'ts not forget the Roman festival of Di Manes (the deceased) known as Feralia, which followed Parentalia, a lengthy period of time in February in which ancestors were revered in a manner akin to household gods. These ancestral dead are where the D&D Manes and lemures derive from. Historically I've generally been under the impression that the appearance of demons was part of the Christianization of Rome, as older pagan beliefs were subsumed into the Christian baggage about evil beings which derived from older sources such as the devas, asuras, Ahriman and other concepts....Di Manes became the demons, another one of the "other" that was the demonization (ahem) of pre-Christian belief systems.
According to an online etymology dictionary, demon (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=demon), like devil (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=devil), comes from Greek.
Apparently, Greek "daimon" could include souls of the dead, and this word in turn came from Proto Indo European (supposedly) dai-mon, meaning something like "provider" or "one who provides" (compare "providence"?).
Greek "diabolos" apparently literally meant something like "throws across" hence "one who throws across", as in throwing accusations, hence slanderer (see upthread). The "dia" bit possibly being related to the sense of "two" (like "between"?).
But of course Sanskrit is very close to Proto Indo European. Hence for instance PIE "duwo" or "dwo" ("two") is cognate with Sanskrit "dvau". Apparently the PIE root for "ballein" (Greek for "throw") is something like "gwele".
So does that mean that if you wanted to invent a word for the devil with the oldest possible flavour you could make it "duwogwele"? Of course that isn't a real PIE word and maybe if the ancients had heard it they might have guessed that you meant to say "twice-inflated" which I suppose could neatly allude to the devil's pride...
From a roleplaying perspective, I go with devils = corruptors, demons = destroyers.
Wily behind the scenes manipulative antagonist? Devil.
Ravening monster ripping things to pieces? Demon.
Quote from: apparition13;873954From a roleplaying perspective, I go with devils = corruptors, demons = destroyers.
Wily behind the scenes manipulative antagonist? Devil.
Ravening monster ripping things to pieces? Demon.
I think that might be an oversimplification. Ideally, the difference between D&D demons and devils is that demons are hedonistic whereas devils are tyrannical and this reflects in their modus operandi and end goals.
Devils want to corrupt, enslave and buy souls in an orderly manner. They work in groups to make up for individual deficiencies and better allocate resources. They are willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in their pursuit of power.
Demons just want to have fun and couldn't care less about souls. While the less patient or creative ones stoop to banal rampages, others devise more baroque ways of tormenting their victims. The succubus seduces and ruins innocent lives, the glabrezu grants wishes that backfire horribly, etc.
In my games I almost never make any distinction.
In my DCC game I have Daemons, which are ultra-powerful immortal AI patrons for wizards; and demons, which are still powerful but not nearly as powerful leathery-winged cloven-hoofed extra-planar monsters.
Quote from: Spinachcat;872656D&D breaks down demons as Chaotic Evil and devils as Lawful Evil, but outside of D&D, what are the differences between the two?
Do any other RPGs separate Demons from Devils?
From a myth perspective, is there any difference?
Outside of OD&D - you mean in the real world (since that is the only thing outside of OD&D ;) )They are two names for the same identical thing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;874232In my games I almost never make any distinction.
In my DCC game I have Daemons, which are ultra-powerful immortal AI patrons for wizards; and demons, which are still powerful but not nearly as powerful leathery-winged cloven-hoofed extra-planar monsters.
Are those homophones or does the /ae/ in "Daemons" change pronunciation?
In ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://warhammerfantasyroleplay.com), we make no distinction between the two. Both terms are interchangeable. For flavor, the hierarchy of demons is lain out according to the Kabbalah; specifically, the Qliphoth.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;875916Are those homophones or does the /ae/ in "Daemons" change pronunciation?
The latter are pronounced "day-mons".
Quote from: RPGPundit;876101The latter are pronounced "day-mons".
Both dee-mons and day-mons are correct for daemon. "day-mon" is likely the older pronunciation. Just like how people still say the "T" in often (I do, given I grew up in rural Canada).
If someone is going to distinguish between what is basically a spelling change and make it mean two different things, then pronouncing it differently would make more sense.
Well, the word demon comes from the greek "Daimonos". Which is pronounced "die-moh-nohs", that is, with the "o"s prounounced like "ostrich" not "ozarks". I've never heard anyone say that in English "demon" or "daemon" should be pronounced "die-mon" though.