GameBanshee Forums

Somewhere in the transition between 3.5 and 4th edition, the Succubus changed from a demon (Tanar'ri) to a devil (baatezu). I have searched the forum for an explination on this but haven't had any luck finding anything so I figured I would post about this. First off, to get things straight, I know nothing about 4th edition. I have none of the books nor have I had a chance to look at them in depth, so if it is explained in there then I haven't had access to it.

When the Succubus changed from a demon to a devil, was this done through some kind of RP or Lore in the D&D storyline, or is 4th edition something totally apart from 3.5 altogether?

The reason I ask this question is because I am working on a villianous character or NPC, depends on upcomming games and DM's mood. The character, whether or not it's a PC or NPC, will be a servant of Dispator, but must also have the ability to polymorph within the first fifteen levels of it's advancement.

Basically, what I am wondering is this. Is it possible for a succubus to defect from what they are, a CE Demon, and decide to serve an Arch-Duke for whatever reason? Also, would an Arch-Duke have a demon who defected serve them and how would other devils and demons react to this type of character? I would like to hear several opinions on this.

My best hypothesis.

In D&D, the difference between demons and devils are demons are malevolent constructions of chaos that have no ethical or moral quandries over any thing and a devil is the embodiment of evil in a more organized, militant fashion.


In mythology, a succubus is a demon that invades the dreams of men as a beautiful woman, having sex with them and slowly stealing their soul (AKA, the characteristics of a Demon).


So, the hypothesis, WoTC fails.

I kinda have to agree that WoTC fails. It would be one thing if they at least offered an explination as to why they suddenly changed this, but there is nothing anywhere that I can find. Succubi just magically became devils as if they always were. Not only did they change the Succubus, they also removed the Erinyes from the Monster Manual altogether. The Succubus is in fact supposed to replace the Erinyes even though they aren't the same.

Anyway, I would still like to hear peoples opinion about whether or not it's possible for a succubus to defect and join up with an Arch-Duke. I of course would come up with a good RP reason for such a change to occur, but I would first like to know if this is even possible. Also, I would like to know how devils and demons would react to such a character.

I'd say it's possible. Look at Fall From Grace from PS:T. She's a LN Succubus.

I actually liked the change. Succubi in D&D 3.5 were always played as a bit more malevolently cunning and enjoyed tearing people down into debauchery and corruption. Most of the CE demons didn't think long term enough to bother corrupting the innocent - succubi did. To the extent that succubi would form cults that believed they were good gods or angels and then slaughter them all in order to become lilitu. In my mind, that was always more of a devil sort of an act.

In 3.5 it would make sense for them to 'serve' an arch-duke so long as they weren't bound by any contracts (if the arch-duke allowed that) simply because the succubi felt like it, had the same goal, or what-not. The alliance might work for a few years so long as the succubi were given a long enough leash. They might even bow down to an arch-duke's contract rather than be destroyed though they'd chafe under the constrictions.

At least, those are my thoughts.

There are organized demons too but the stereotypical succubi isn't as you describe but rather, just looking for a quick fix of trading sex for someone's soul...

Glabrezu's have the ability to grant people wishes once a month and mariliths are military geniuses. It's not really a matter of whether they can become organized and militant but rather whether they choose to.