Talk:Deva

Title Change?
Title change, perhaps? Aasimar/devas are also, according to the FRPG, PHB2, and Ecology of Devas article, themselves angels. So Deva (angel) doesn't really distinguish the player race from the monsters. Niirfa-sa 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * perhaps, Deva (aasimon)? ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:20, January 6, 2018 (UTC)


 * "Aasimon" seems to be the 2e euphemism for angels, like devils are baatezu, etc., so it might be out-of-date. What about "Deva (celestial)"? — BadCatMan (talk) 02:39, January 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think my preferred solution is to change Deva to Deva (aasimar) and make this one the new Deva. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:18, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As 5e has gone back to using "deva" for full angelic outsiders, we should too, per the latest-source Canon policy and because it will be more natural to link new deva lore to simply "deva". — BadCatMan (talk) 15:44, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * The deed is done. ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:49, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Split
I think this articles should be split into four&mdash;this main one, and one for each of the deva varieties. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:59, October 31, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I have seen each deva get its separate "monster entry" e.g. in Planescape, so, yeah, splitting makes sense to me. Daranios (talk) 18:03, October 31, 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and that's my plan. The three orders of deva get their own stats in 2e and 3e and are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. There's a fair bit of overlap though, so I'll put general deva information in this main article, and the specific information in the others. Then 5e's deva might be considered a fourth deva. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:39, January 7, 2018 (UTC)

Further development
I've completed the above-mentioned split, making this an umbrella page for the three orders/types of deva, using the 2e and 3e/3.5 depictions. I've written the movanic deva page and will do the astral deva page at some point. However, I won't do the monadic deva – although they undoubtedly have a role in the planes of the Realms, no Realms source that I know of specifically mentions them. Any page on them would be marked Unrelated. So I figure it can wait.

I'll keep an eye for more FR-related deva lore as well as the 1e versions.

Someone else can finish adding the lore and stats for the 5e deva, unless I find them and work them out. As discussed at User_talk:Lhynard/Projects/Celestial_Restoration, it's ambiguous as to whether it should be treated as a generic any-deva, a modified movanic or astral deva, or perhaps an unnamed fourth order of deva. I favor a fourth order or generic deva, as it would be confusing to the existing movanic and astra deva pages to merge them. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:18, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * (Fallen) monadic devas appear in Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition, specifically the "The Black Pits II: Gladiators of Thay" module. There is an entry for "regular" monadic devas in the game files as well, but I don't know where they appear in the game. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 12:26, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh. So I don't get to skip that work then. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:44, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you are bound by oath to complete the task. :P ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:52, January 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * And, at last, the monadic deva page is done. However, I can't adequately check or explain their appearance in "Gladiators of Thay", so I'll leave that for others. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:54, November 27, 2018 (UTC)


 * It is done. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 11:10, November 27, 2018 (UTC)


 * You are a man of your word.


 * I have added a bit more from Warriors of Heaven and turned the note you kept copying into a template, that way we don't have to edit it in four places if we get new information or want to tweak the wording.


 * I may go back and add more WoH stuff to the other angel articles, but I want to get archons mostly wrapped up first.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:46, November 27, 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks both Lhynard and Ir'revrykal. I'll clarify the changing appearances of the devas then I'll be done with them. I can't find any more Realmslore about devas to include, without working up specific characters in novels I haven't read. I could scrape some bits out of Book of Exalted Deeds. Is it worth including the sample deva characters and champions of the Celestial Hebdomad? — BadCatMan (talk) 01:00, November 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: champions of the Celestial Hebdomad: I'll be making that article and articles for each of the Hebdomad members next. My plan was to not bother making articles for the champions, as they have more to do with the Planescape setting than with the Realms. I'll mention them and even link them, but I don't think we should worry about making articles for them. Warriors of Heaven also gives sample celestial NPCs, FWIW. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:31, November 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll ignore them then. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:40, November 28, 2018 (UTC)

Handling 5e Devas
Okay, I've completed the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-edition lore for devas, astral devas, monadic devas, and movanic devas. Let me know if you see any issues with how I've done it.

All that remains is the 5th-edition deva. Unfortunately, it's rather different from all the earlier devas: closest to the movanic deva (coloration, shapechanging), but not quite like any of them (different weapon, similar to astral deva's mace; generic spells). So, I need to decide how to handle it. Do I merge the 5e deva information in this deva article, perhaps describing it as a later or generic deva? Or do I make another article and treat it as a new order of deva, and we develop that as more 5e deva lore comes along? — BadCatMan (talk) 08:43, December 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be reasonable to assume the deva entry in the 5e MM is an "aggregate summary" of current deva lore, only containing what little detail can fit into a paragraph or two? If so, I don't think there's a need to make a 4th article just yet&mdash;the MM entry could just be giving a very general description. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 09:28, December 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems we already discussed this up this page and at User_talk:Lhynard/Projects/Celestial_Restoration. :) So, in 5e, Lumalia was retconned from astral deva to just deva, with the golden coloration of classic astral devas and the stats of the 5e deva. So, yeah, it seems in 5e the devas have been merged into one simplified deva, or the aggregate summary as you say. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:20, December 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm done! Devas are done! :D — BadCatMan (talk) 08:24, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is D&D Beyond considered an official source now that it's owned by WotC? The pronounciation attached to the Deva statblock is most similar to that of "Deva" from Hinduism, i.e. /ˈdeɪvə/, which seems like a reasonable choice given that's where the inspiration comes from

PinkFlumph (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question, thank you for bringing it up. In the past I would say no, as D&D Beyond was not considered official WotC content. The recent acquisition changes that in my opinion. Let me direct this conversation to the Pronounciation template talk page and ask some of the other moderators for their opinions. Ruf (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a canon question more than a Pronunciation template question. If we decide that a source is canon, it can be cited in the template just like any other source. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)