Will there Ever Be Female Demons in This Game?
General forum
Posted on Nov. 15, 2022, 8:20 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
By default, demons in MtG are male and angels in MtG are female (which makes an unintentional but still unfortunate implication), but there have been male angels on rare occasion (usually to indicate that there is something wrong with the world on which they appear, which makes another unfortunate implication), so I am now wondering if this game shall ever have female demons, for the novelty of that. New Capenna finally introduced female devils, after years of devils being only male, so I would like to see female demons, as well.
What does everyone else say about this? Will this game ever have female demons?
Lady Orca is a supporting character from Legends who is a female Demon. Ziatora is also female.
Sphinxes tend to be female as well, but there's a closer balance and more gender-unidentified examples there.
I'm not sure if this contributes anything, but there are a lot more animalistic Demons than Angels.
November 15, 2022 8:54 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #4
November 15, 2022 9:13 p.m.
The reason given by Rosewater is that they do not want comparisons to succubi in the game, as there are historical problems with how female demons are portrayed. This is not a particularly great reason - succubi also exist in other properties owned by Wizards, there are plenty of other ways they could depict a female demon, and, frankly, similar historical issues have existed in female portrayals of vampires.
Frankly, I think that’s a pretty bad reason to give and it underestimates the skill of their creators to create a more feminine demon which works, but there it is.
It certainly does not have anything to do with whatever nonsense you seem to be implying about anti-male discrimination. That kind of “men’s rights” talk is the refuge of the ignorant, and certainly you are better than to actually think what your parentheticals seem to indicate you think.
November 15, 2022 9:25 p.m.
Caerwyn I'm not sure if a post got deleted or something, but if not, your point on discrimination and "men's rights" is way off base. After rereading the OP, it seems to me that they just wanted to make a light-hearted discussion about changes that could be made to the status quo to broaden art depictions of creature types in one fantasy card game. Intent may be in the reader's ears, but bear in mind that a discussion is not always an argument. Sometimes it's best just to chalk things up to, maybe I don't know what their words (like the OP's parentheses) mean to convey, rather than assuming the worst and throwing back insults.
But more to the point, it would be awesome if they do female demons, or even if they did demons on a spectrum of gender. No explanations are even needed, just add more art for legacy characters and let them take any shape they choose at any time they choose. If the lore reasons are like TypicalTimmy says and they are reformed then there is no limit. And I'm just saying, but I'd hard buy a gender spectrum Griselbrand secret lair : ) Or Rakdos, or any legend demon for that matter.
November 16, 2022 7:56 a.m.
Wasn’t the demon that formed a contract with Liliana female?
November 16, 2022 4:14 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #8
That was four demons: Kothophed, Soul Hoarder, Griselbrand, Razaketh, the Foulblooded, and Demonlord Belzenlok
November 16, 2022 6:26 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #9
The novella, Children of the Nameless, apparently reintroduces female demons.
And I hope the irony isn't lost on everyone here. The argument that "demons are only male reinforces negative views on masculinity" is entirely subverted with the retort of "they won't do female demons for fear of being portrayed as succubus".
So, essentially, what it boils down to is it is okay to showcase demonic beings as tall, strong, destructive, hyper-masculine figures hell-bent on sowing discord and destruction. You know, toxic masculinity traits and all.
But showing them as voluptuous, hyper-sexual female demons who manipulate, lie and steal is "sexist".
Two sides of the same coin. You can't uphold the sanctity of one while demonizing (lol) the other. If that's how the argument is made, the argument is flawed from the start.
If the worst of men can be put to ink as artistic representations of classical demons, the worst of women should be allowed to as well.
And if that bothers anyone reading this, it only serves to show you how sexist you truly are. You are unable to rationalize that women are just as flawed as men.
November 17, 2022 10:55 a.m.
You are better than that argument, TypicalTimmy - it reeks of the historical recidivism necessary to justify half-baked “I’m not sexist, you are sexist!” claims used less to make a valid point, and more to justify one’s own bigotry.
As literally anyone who isn’t purposefully trying to manipulate a narrative knows, those two definitions of demon come from very, very different historical perspectives. The more aggressive “masculine” portrayal of demons is historically based in teaching morals - those depictions are designed to emphasise traits seen as undesired. Historically feminine demons, like succubi, have had a very different reason for their inception - repression. These demons were not created to warn about certain personality traits, but to warn against the dangers of women. They are firmly rooted in medieval literature trying to dissuade men from consorting with any women who rejected the repressive hierarchy of the era, or any women from questioning their repressed lot in life.
Now, do I think that is a sufficient justification to not have feminine demons? Absolutely not - through D&D, Wizards has already shows they can develop some interesting, complex demonic female characters that stay far afield of the historical repression inherent in some of those depictions (including the product’s own recent history, seeing as Gary Gygax was a self-admitted sexist).
But, weak though I find their reason, trying to insinuate it is sexist betrays either ignorance of the historical origins of the two different depictions or a feigned ignorance to push a political agenda.
November 17, 2022 11:16 a.m.
I'm not sure if it counts, but maybe Zariel, Archduke of Avernus or Fallen Angel are somewhere near female demons.
November 17, 2022 12:46 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #12
Although personally I'd like cheesecake and beefcake style art of both genders all the time, I'm aware that's not the direction Wizards is taking the art direction ;) That being said, I'd love a buff feminine demon a la Zan from Hedon, and for that matter, a pretty boy angel to appear in the future. Given Oko's and Ixalan Jace's design, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
November 17, 2022 4:23 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #13
Caerwyn, given that this game has plenty of female characters who are not seductive temptresses, what harm could a few female demons do? Also, seducing mortals with the temptation of power is a central and defining trait for demons in classical mythology, so why would that be a problem, now, in this era? I am almost afraid to use this example, but some people believe that goblins are a negative portrayal of Jewish people, but very few people whom I know hold that belief, so I highly doubt that any modern audiences would think that succubi are a negative portrayal of women overall.
Also, given that this game has male nymphs and sirens, beings who were exclusively female in Greek mythology, I think that any argument against female demons is weak.
On the subject of Dungeons & Dragons, I have not played that game since the end of 3rd edition, so are succubi still portrayed the same way as they were in that edition, or are they very different, now?
November 17, 2022 8:35 p.m.
DemonDragonJ - Historical origins are important, particularly if their bigoted messages permeate modern depictions. Let’s look at the two relevant examples you discussed - other, usually male, demons and goblins (nymphs and dryads are not really relevant to the conversation - the issue Wizards raised is specifically historical harmful stereotyping, and that example does not implicate the negative stereotyping in the same way the others do)
Starting with other demons, the depiction of those demons is about temptation, which, on its face, does appear similar to the succubi. However, the origins of these temptations come from very different places - and therein lies the problem. Masculine demons corrupt, but they do require the seeds of corruption to already exist in their target - they take existing greed, anger, and pride and grow those negative personality traits until they consume the person.
Succubi, on the other hand, do not need that initial seed - they have been shown to corrupt even “pure” individuals. That is because, unlike other demons, they are not a morality message against having sin in your own heart - they are a warning that “feminine wiles” are evil and can corrupt even the innocent. This is part of a greater narrative that still very, very much exists today - one need not look very hard to find countless criminals trying to justify violence against women as “her clothing/mannerisms/etc. made me do it.”
And, in anticipation of “but the incubus does the same thing, so it is gender neutral” - not quite. There is an element of victim blaming in incubi lore—that the female victim was the one at fault for falling to lust. In those stories, the incubus is still depicted like any other type of male demon - they grow lust already in their victim, rather than simply overpower them with sexuality. This also is part of the long-standing and continuing narrative of blaming women for sexual violence perpetrated against them.
Given the historical roots and the fact those roots still both permeate the idea of what a succubi is and run parallel to the frightfully common defense used by predators and others who repress women, one should be able to see why Wizards would be wary of invoking that depiction - even unintentionally.
Goblins are a great example where Wizards - and fantasy generally - have mostly triumphed over their historical roots. In the Hobbit, Tolkien (a man who turned down the money he would have made from a German translation and publication run of the Hobbit because he did not like the antisemitic rhetoric of the Nazis) really shifted the narrative and made goblins goofy, less greedy and more childish in their love of shiny things, and full of songs and general tomfoolery. A lot of their antisemitic historical origins were scrubbed - and The Hobbit’s success really reset the conversation and gave a mulligan for the entire fantasy race.
That does not mean there are not flaws sometimes - the original Dockside Extortionist art was widely critiqued for invoking pre-Tolkien, antisemitic imagery.
Succubi have not had that same reset that Tolkien gave to goblins. There have been some attempts - D&D made succubi and incubi the same species of demon, with any given member of that species able to manifest as either option, and there as a fairly long-lasting TV show, Lost Girl that followed a succubi protagonist - but these attempts have not reforged their origins to the same extent goblins were rehabilitated.
Again, I think Wizards is more than capable of rising above historical issues - and that they have done so in the past. However, to the extent there is fault on Wizards’ part, that fault is in a desire to protect their players and not spread hatred - and I would certainly rather they err on the side of caution than mess up and hurt people. Especially since, just a couple months ago, Wizards published a D&D supplement full of imagery that looked a lot like minstrel shows (racist depictions of African Americans) and contained a related piece of lore that was almost word-for-word taken from Civil War era slavery apologists. So, while I think Magic probably could do this - it is important to acknowledge they just had a very, very big and public failure resulting in inclusion of inadvertent bigotry to one of their games.
November 18, 2022 10:49 a.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #15
Caerwyn, I still think that it would not take a great amount of effort to keep succubi as wily temptresses while discarding the idea that women and sexuality are inherently evil, but, if WotC has chosen to not have female demons in Magic: the Gathering, I shall not lose any sleep over that decision, because it does not affect my enjoyment of the game in any way.
Also, since I have not played Dungeons & Dragons in many years, what was the name of that supplement?
November 19, 2022 8:51 a.m.
I think that it's important to reiterate that Angels and Demons are genderless. So the real discussion is about masculinity vs femininity, not male vs female. That distinction is something I've wrestled with for most of my life.
To draw from my personal experience, I've long identified myself as a very feminine male. In today's sociopolitical environment, I might say that I identify as a woman. But I personally believe that doing so would be counterproductive. To say that I identify as a woman would suggest that men can't be feminine and women can't be masculine. It reinforces traditional gender roles. To relate this to the current discussion, I posit that anyone who looks at the artwork for demons in MtG and says that these genderless figures are all men, must accept their own bias which insists that only men can be masculine.
Even if that's the intention of the artists and/or designers, the interpretation of the observer is important. For example, if you look at Master of Cruelties and see a male figure, you're exposing your own biases about "what a woman looks like." Should it be skinny, long-haired, big-boobed and scantily clad? Would that look more like a woman to you? Can a woman not be big, strong, imposing and fully armored?
If that bias is based in truth (which, I believe is incorrect, but will allow the idea for the sake of argument), then what about:
Couldn't you make the argument that the artwork for these cards "look like women?"
And no, none of them are legendary creatures, ultimately they're as genderless as other cards that are much more easy to accept as such (e.g. Hezrou), and, like I am trying to posit, it doesn't say anything about actual gender either way, because however you see these cards is shaped by your social education about what a man or a woman are supposed to look like.
Now, as for angels, the breasts are a dead giveaway. Which is not to say that men never have large breasts, but the visual characterization of angels in MtG tend to follow the general characterization of women in the rest of the fantasy genre (i.e. long hair blowing in the wind, unrealistically large breasts, armor that makes them look sexy at the expense of being actually effective as armor, etc.). This, in my opinion, is what really is the type of thing that should be changed. There're certainly many ways to depict strong woman without giving them big tits and hardly any clothing. Especially in the case of angels, which like demons, are meant to be genderless. However, because the lore defines them as being manifested in the likeness of Serra - who was a human woman - it would be at least more acceptable to be able to depict them as masculine even while depicting them as female. To suggest that you couldn't is the definition of gender norm bias.
That's why I think that the reason Rosewater gives for not depicting "female" demons - if what's been suggested here is true - is utter bullshit. To suggest that the only way to depict a female demon is as a succubus, suggests that women are one-dimensional. I might argue that you could make Demonlord Belzenlok "look female" simply by putting a shirt on it. And why not? Too muscular? Too imposing? Hair too short? Breasts too small? Not showing enough leg? Ask yourself: why do you think it's impossible for a woman to look like that?
November 20, 2022 11:46 a.m.
SteelSentry says... #17
Epicurus Besides Herald of Slaanesh literally depicting a daemon that gains its strength through mortals indulging their lust and hedonic pleasure, I understand the point of view. I think there are many planes (especially ones not influenced by mainstream Western mythology) that do a pretty good job of depicting a range of body types for demons.
Angels could use some work in the department of perceived gender expression, although the recency bias surrounding planes like Dominaria (created in Serra's image), Innistrad (based on Western European folklore), and Kaldheim (analogues of the Valkyrie) does have an effect. Examples are scarce, but the manmade angels of Ahmonkhet and Mirrodin are a step in the right direction toward androgynous angels.
Selfishly, I would like a "pretty boy" angel, for personal aesthetic reasons. I like hearing the lens people approach this topic with, though!
November 20, 2022 5:55 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #18
Epicurus, has it ever been explicitly stated that angels and demons in this game are genderless/sexless? And, if that is the case, why do they have clearly masculine and feminine appearances, unlike elementals or aetherborn, who are clearly androgynous?
November 20, 2022 5:59 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #19
DemonDragonJ After the WotC website overhaul caused a lot of old articles to be lost to time, the original article explaining it is gone, but they are correct. Demons, with a few plane to plane exceptions, are physical manifestations of black mana. Angels on Dominaria are white mana constructs that Serra created to protect her realm and the plane at large, and on other planes have a similar nature.
The article is gone, but there's more than a handful of places, wikis, etc. that reference that fact.
November 20, 2022 11:13 p.m.
I would adore some "pretty boy" angels tbh, especially one with a bright, luminous smile ahhhh <3
November 25, 2022 1:47 p.m.
Btw, Conductor of Cacophony from Jumpstart 22 is a female demon.
November 25, 2022 1:51 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #22
MrTitanic, I checked that card, and you are correct that it is a female demon; she is not particularly attractive, but, to quote a common adage, beggars cannot be choosers, and, perhaps, there may be an alternate art of her that is more attractive, given the large number of cards in that set that have attractive women in their alternate artwork.
November 26, 2022 12:03 a.m.
The fact that your first and only observation about a newly-spoiled female demon was to evaluate her attractiveness is questionable at best. It also undermines other comments you have made on this thread--it looks a lot like you care less about Wizards branching out from their historical (and kind of bad) reason for not including them, and instead that you care a lot more about fetishizing female demon Magic cards.
That might not be what you are going for, but it is pretty darn hard to draw any other conclusion from how you chose to respond to learning of Conductor of Cacophony.
November 26, 2022 1:07 a.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #25
Caerwyn, I assure you that that was not my intent, but her effect is adequate, but nothing spectacular, so I am not certain what I could have said about it. I also do not understand why some demons in this game have flying, while others do not, whereas all angels have flying.
Also, I never said that I wished for female demons in this game to be seductive succubi, but they can still be attractive; why would any artist spend all that time and effort to draw a character who is not attractive?
November 26, 2022 9:16 a.m.
There are so many common sense answers to that question. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe that is what the artist liked. Or maybe they wanted to create something scary for a creature embodying evil. Or perhaps they were told about Wizards’ succubus concerns and did not want to make something that could be seen as a succubus. Or mayhap they are not comfortable with their ability at drawing “pretty.” Or possibly they do not want their art fetishised. Or...
The entire 50,000 year old history of art (and possibly tens of thousands of years older) is littered with examples of “why an artist would spend time and effort on something you personally might find unattractive.”
November 26, 2022 9:33 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #27
Caerwyn, you are quite correct; I made that last post quite impulsively, before I had time to think it through, properly.
I am almost afraid to ask, but what, exactly, is wrong with certain people fetishizing certain artwork?
Also, the idea that succubi are a negative commentary on women overall never occurred to me before you mentioned it, and I have been alive for 35 years, so I still maintain that the majority of modern audiences will not form such a conclusion, either.
November 26, 2022 9:44 a.m.
Art is, in part, a reflection of the artist - as you sort of eluded to in your prior post. It follows that some—maybe many—artists would rather not have one fetishize a work that metaphysically contains part of their soul. After all, that would effectively be fetishizing the artist.
November 26, 2022 10:20 a.m.
I'm not always with Caerwyn, but that is some pretty good hx of art & philosophical analysis in the bottom couple of posts. It is actually a little bit unusual that in the modern age people don't associate the "succubi" with the extremely negative double-standardized connotations. Succubus was a very guilt-based (Eve was all wrong - all her fault) construct. It was a dreamt up by a post-inquisition, extremely patriarchal society... It was very "It wasn't my fault, that woman was a succubus".
On a similar train of thought, I always thought the "brokeback" phenomenon was goofy as hell; where you literally would have to snap the spine below the breasts & relocate it about a foot to fit what some of these anime & comic book artists do with the female figure. I do enjoy artists who do not draw brokeback & draw a wide variety of human physique.
Back to female demons, there was feminine (maybe, androgenous) wasp-demon from Theros as well that looked pretty awesome. To me angels make more sense as being more androgenous-looking & demons make more sense appearing based on their functions. If there is an element of sexuality to their nogoodnicking, then maybe they should look hyper-masculine or feminine & if they are more mindlessly destructive, then make them more bestial.
Artwise, New Capenna ruled for the unique & unusual. Jetmir, Nexus of Revels is so friggen amazing.
November 26, 2022 12:08 p.m.
Conductor of Cacophony still has the large breasts and bare thighs that fantasy artist can't seem to be able to avoid when presenting female figures. That trope very much disappoints me. I don't want to go on that rant again, so just refer to my earlier post on this thread.
November 26, 2022 2:02 p.m.
Well, seduction / lust would be their domain I suppose
November 27, 2022 1:51 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #32
Gleeock, surely, in this age of enlightenment and equality, you cannot think that the majority of people would think that succubi are a negative commentary on women? Everyone whom I know personally would interpret succubi at face value; they are seductive female demons, and nothing more; everyone in my social circle is sufficiently enlightened to not think that succubi are a misogynistic concept, and, as a side note, no one whom I know would ever think that goblins are a negative portrayal of Jewish people; to me and my friends, goblins are just goblins.
MrTitanic, when you speak of "pretty boy angels," were you thinking more akin to Byakuya Kuchiki from Bleach and Itachi Uchiha from Naruto or Bridget from Guilty Gear?
November 30, 2022 8:20 p.m.
I do feel that way. I'm not sure what lens you are seeing them through (maybe a complete rebrand), but at face value to me it is the old-school cautionary creature.... not the fetishized Darkstalker-style stuff - those seem to be more like: Spinal Tap: "Smell the Glove" album & those can bother people for different reasons.
As far as the Goblin example, that one is based more off a rebrand niche goblin role again which is a bit counter to the original point - which are you talking about: modern fantasy genre goblins? Or the Queen Mab style goblins of fairy tale? If you are talking about Tolkien/high fantasy origin; those are a nice middle ground & are not particularly anti-Semitic. If anything is Jew-based in Tolkien high fantasy, it is probably actually the Dwarves.
December 2, 2022 2:30 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #34
Gleeock, it seems to me that you and I shall not be able to agree on this subject, but the reason for which I do not see sexism and racism in fantasy is because I am not looking for it; I consider myself to be sufficiently open-minded and egalitarian that I view fiction as exactly that: fiction.
I have heard some people say that the dwarves from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves are a negative portrayal of Jewish people, but I think that would take a stretch of imagination, especially since they are unquestionably heroic, whereas most depictions of Jewish people at that time would have been decidedly more negative. I also do not see how dwarves in the works of Tolkien can be anti-semitic, so please explain to me how they are.
December 3, 2022 9:20 a.m.
Khuzdul, Tolkien’s constructed Dwarven language, was built around Hebrew and other Semitic language’s grammatical structures. The language combined with the fact the dwarves are presented as greedy is often seen as being a bit problematic.
Tolkien, despite being a devout Catholic in a time where many catholics were antisemitic, did not appear to harbour antisemitic tendencies himself. Most notably, when he was told by the Nazi party before the War that they would love to translate his books into German but he would need to sign a document stating he was an “Aryan”, Tolkien sent them a letter explaining why their etymology about the word Aryan was kind of stupid and about his extreme respect for the Jewish people.
Still, though likely unintentional, and a coincidence based on Tolkien’s love of experimenting with different languages and characterisations, in a vacuum the dwarves can look quite problematic. It is not like the average reader is going to be a Tolkien expert and have read his letters - they just have what is before them in the novels.
December 3, 2022 10:34 a.m.
I wasn't saying any Tolkien writing's were anti-Semitic, I was saying negative Goblin portrayal in some of the foundations of high fantasy (Tolkien) are not particularly so. Then I was saying, if any high fantasy race was Jewish-based it would be Durin's Folk... Though, not so much anti-semetic, & mostly positive, or at least empathetic views: A disenfranchised people, without a home, hardworking Bohemians having to work various oddjobs.
DemonDragonJ I do think there is an important factor in mentioning fantasy IS exactly that, AND when you see horrible qualities in your antagonists they are just that; ANTAGONISTS :) - bad guys should be deplorable & unfortunately that can be inflammatory to some people.. I do think infamous characters should be equal opportunity.
One important difference on the "succubus", specifically, is that the origin of that one is religious/institutional, it was rooted in the "reality" at the time in which that could be a legit excuse for poor behaviour in the clergy/patriarchy of the time.. Another Scarlet Letter. However, NO ONE would be taken seriously if they said "goblins did it" - so one is firmly fantasy, the other one is much closer to indoctrinated "reality".
Now, if witches can be rebranded from 'consorts of Satan' (thanks L.Frank Baum), then Succubi can probably get there eventually. I think think though, there are 2 sides of a coin that prevent this: (probably :) ) a lot of feminist thinking dislikes the origin & image & more conservative thinking dislikes the frequency of no clothing. If I just asked my wife what she thought about the average succubus picture (not being a historian & being slight conservative bent) she'd either say: "she looks like an evil ___*lusty expletive" or she'd say: "yeah, I don't see our daughter looking up to that any time soon". So, while I enjoy the Succubi, I also think in this "age of enlightement" there is a larger group of average people outside of my immediate cohorts that would think that way.
December 3, 2022 11:14 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #37
Gleeock, at this point, I really do not think that there is anything further that can be said, since each of us does not seem to be willing to concede to the other, and, as for my original question, if WotC does not wish to have female demons in this game, then that is their decision, and I shall not worry myself about it.
December 3, 2022 6:49 p.m.
I think it would be cool if they keep having female demons... Just all types, shapes, & forms :) . I really like Lady Orca, what a badass. They must have made her long before they had the idea to split the 2 along gender lines :) ... Which always seemed kindof nonsensical to me
December 3, 2022 8:13 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #39
Gleeock, yes, I think that female demons, or any creature that resembles a human female, can be attractive without being seductive, but seducing mortals is a demon's entire modus operandi (or am I redirecting us back to the beginning of our conversation by saying that?).
December 4, 2022 1:59 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #40
I think part of the issue of portraying female Demons comes down to basic anatomy. Anatomically speaking, breasts (or utters, teats, etc) serve a specific purpose of nurturing offspring. But, not all female animals require these in order to progress their next-of-kin. Insects don't. Reptiles and amphibians don't. Birds don't. Nor do fish, or aquatic mammalian. In fact, only land mammals have them. Which is frankly interesting that such a small percentage of the total biodiversity of life on Earth even does this practice.
Taking this to a logical point of view (Wait, logic in my fantasy!?), there should be no reason for a female Demon to have them, since according to the lore of MTG as I stated in the first post, they are essentially compressed (mostly black) mana who by-in-large do not reproduce in a sexual manner. They may corrupt, meld souls with essence to create new Demons or otherwise conjure other entities into existence but this does not mean they are reproducing sexually. And even if they are, it would be rather hard to suggest that the female Demons would require such delicate care for their kin.
Consider it along the lines as to why the female Argonian from The Elder Scrolls have breasts. There is literally no logical reason for them to have these. Similarly, it is odd that the female Khajiit have them, instead of two or three pairings of teats on their abdomen, as real-world cats do.
Chalk it up to creative laziness.
Regardless, while an exquisite and seductive female form for a Demon can be rather useful in some situations, there is literally no actual reason for it, at all, in totality.
And that's precisely why the Demons are asexual. There is literally no reason for them to have a classically-feminine physique. Perhaps it sounds sexist, but we need to evaluate them outside of basic Human anatomy. If the goal of a Demon, in MTG lore, is to be a domineering force Hellbent on destruction, sabotage, anarchy and war then having a colossal imposing form would benefit the most. The deadlier the form, the easier it will be to achieve their goal.
To that end, you do not even need a classically masculine build, either. There is no reason to appear Humanoid. There is no reason to have that physique at all. Something like this, a gorilla-scorpion hybrid would suffice, as would this, a titan the size of a literal mountain. Or this, a Hellish goat-wolf hybrid made out of smoke.
Being "Human" literally means nothing. Some lesser Demons, such as succubus and incubus, might find powerful use out of our forms, mimicking it to a degree as to allure us into a false sense of security as to take advantage of and kill us with. Sure. But even these are pointless, as they indicate both a female and male anatomy alike, when in reality they are neither and thus could likely fulfill both roles appropriately.
What I would rather see is not more female Demons, but more abstract ones in their place. More beast-like, carnivorously twisted abominations spawned out of hate, anger and rage; Animalistic in nature as to devour, rampage and control across the multiverse. Demons who take upon the form best suited to dominate their environment.
For example, Draconic Demons on Tarkir, or Dinosaur Demons on Ixalan. Titanic Elemental-like Demons for Zendikar. On Ravnica is where we would see more Human-like Demons. Innistrad may have some, but generally those would be colossal giants, able to stride the expanse of the plane in relative ease. So large that the Angels can barely handle their presence.
Demons should represent where they are from, and not our cultural bias of sexuality.
December 4, 2022 3:45 p.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #41
TypicalTimmy, that does make sense, and I think that that is a very well-thought out post, so what about angels? Angels in MtG seem to uniformly resemble human females, but do you think that their forms should vary, based upon their plane of origin?
December 4, 2022 6:42 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #42
Well the Angels actually have lore behind their anatomy. The original Angels were created by Serra the Benevolent who created them in her image, who populated her own plane of existence literally called Serra's Realm. Since her inception, following her choice to die, Angels have been comprised of compressed (mostly white) mana that took form based on her original design.
So to that end, female Angles make sense within the context of the established lore. Though I'd prefer to see all races attributed. It would be nice to see any sapient being be represented in an Angelic format. For example, an Elf Angel or a Rhox Angel. Though, since Angel is a race at this point (Though unable to reproduce sexually), it would sort of be equivalent of asking for an Elf Rhox (Elf Rhino) or a Gnome Naga.
So, take that with a grain of salt. Again, as I said in the very first comment in this thread, there is an established reason Angels are portrayed as female, while Demons are not. But I feel Demons should be pushed toward animalistic abominations, and Angels should probably look "less Human", if anything. Though, again, they are literally based off of Serra - a Human.
Consider this: A Sphinx is not typed as a "Cat Bird", and a Naga is not a "Human Snake".
Angels, in my opinion, are fine as they are. More male Angels would be nice, but what would be the most nice is seeing them portrayed as other races. Not dissimilar to how Sol, Advocate Eternal is a Dragon Angel.
December 4, 2022 6:55 p.m. Edited.
Abstracting angels wouldn't be bad either.. There is alot of artistic creativity to be had by finding form in light. Especially with foil treatment :) I like the idea of light poking out of some armor for example.
December 4, 2022 7:46 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #44
Gleeock, angels in the Diablo franchise are different from how angels in most other fiction are portrayed in that their faces are not visible and, despite having clearly masculine voices, they seem to not have any physical sexual characteristics, and, having said that, has there ever been a female angel in Diablo, or at least an angel with a clearly feminine voice? I have played only the first two games in that franchise, so I am not familiar with its more recent developments.
TypicalTimmy says... #2
Demons are genderless :)
So are the Angels :O ....... eh, kinda sorta.
The Angels were created by Serra, in her image. This is why most of the Angels are female. Angels, today, are compressed (mostly white) mana taken physical form. Essentially, Angels are somewhere between an avatar, an incarnation and an elemental.
Demons, conversely, are horrid corruptions of (mostly black) mana twisted into physical form within The Blind Eternities, and when they fully form they are cast into a random plane to live. When they do finally die, their essence is broken down and scattered back into The Blind Eternities to be reformed elsewhere. Because of this, Demons actually have no gender, but typically appear "masculine" because of their strong, powerful bodies and demanding presence. But yes, they can appear "feminine" and something entirely different, altogether. Interestingly enough, one could infer that because Demons were made within The Blind Eternities and cast into a plane, it is entirely possible that most, if not all, Demons know the multiverse exists as a consequence.
November 15, 2022 8:29 p.m. Edited.