Talk:Cambion

I'm curious what should we do here. This is, unfortunately, one of the worst conundrums thrown our direction by WOTC. Cambion is well-established in previous lore as meaning a half-demon, half-human. Now, in 4e, it means a half-devil, half-human. Any ideas how we might go reconciling these two, very different meanings? Do we simply make cambions half-devils, as indicated by the 4e lore? Do we keep them where they are in spite of the inconsistency this causes with the Monster Manual? Or do we make cambion simply another word for any half-fiend?

I'm all for hearing others' opinions on this. Niirfa-sa 08:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

4e
well since most people don't play 4th edition so we dont go by it's rule along with the fact that we have to show their progression through out all editions. -Deanostrodamus the mystical
 * Care to prove that?
 * Granted, I agree some reference should be made to the old meaning (such as in the archon article) and some redirect should be arranged. I'm currently in the mode of trying to verify what exactly old, pre-4e cambions are. But we have to, as a wiki, go with the most recent information and not bias ourselves towards what we preferred or what we imagine other might prefer. If wikis did that, than Wookieepedia would no doubt pretend that Jar Jar never existed and Han always shot Greedo preemptively.
 * Like I said, I'm trying to get verification and I recognize the very confusing spot this has put us in. That's why, as of yet, I have not yet changed the content of the article aside from categories and templates. Niirfa-sa 21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer, I think, is to "report the controversy." That is, tell the readers how the term has changed over the course of the game. In 1st and 2nd edition, the term meant the offspring of a demon (other than a succubus) and a human. In 3rd edition, it was a synonym for any half-fiend (according to the Monster Manual). Expedition to the Demonweb Pits threw in a third definition, claiming that a cambion was the child of a demon and a tiefling. 4th edition gives us still a fourth meaning: the child of a human and a devil. But there's no reason this wiki has to be "biased" toward the most recent information or to show any other sort of bias. Simply explain that the definitions have changed, and how they've changed. To use your analogy, while a Star Wars wiki shouldn't pretend the Greedo revision never happened, neither should it pretend there was never a previous version of the scene. The bulk of the article can be directed at the most recent version, if you like, with a "publishing history" section at the end explaining the evolution of the term. It remains a problem that Vheod Runechild, for example, is a cambion and certainly the son of a balor, not a pit fiend. It might be better to relabel him a "half-demon" to prevent confusion. --- Rowan Earthwood 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Add: This is what Wookiepedia does. -- Rowan Earthwood 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair. Niirfa-sa 06:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Behind the scenes? you tried to explain 30 years of D&D in 1 paragraph with a title like behind the scenes. for all that why dont you just put down Trivia. you give a long explainatin to make yourself sound smart then write a half-assed explaination like that. this wiki will never be taken seriously. i mean look at it it's a D&D wiki with out a SLAAD page.