Didn't intend aggression - I found your request for a reference vs. the spell description a bit... well, something exaggerated. And so I did.
There are lots of legacy headaches, no doubt. But I don't find this one contradictory with 5th ed paradigm.
But all the PeVi Guidelines say is "Reduce a creature's MM..." - so by that interpretation only one spell is needed for all 4 realms! Not acceptable ims, but mine isn't yours, natch. But if so, then why have "Demons EO" instead of "Magical Might's Eternal Oblivion", the obvious universal spell? You think the just editors missed that? Anything's possible...
Subjective? Perhaps. I guess it comes down to one's understanding/interpretation of the AM cosmology, and how things work in your saga. For me, there are not parallel manifestations of every realm for every "creature" - there is no Divine equiv of a church brownie or a gremlin, for instance. The Fae are not diametrically opposed to another realm, nor do they manically seek to corrupt humans to "the ways of the Queen of Winter!" I see them working differently on several levels.
And, as I expect all to, I draw the line where I think it's reasonable for my sagas. And for me, it's not reasonable to have one spell that is a panacea for anything and everything that springs from the maw of hell.
I'm confused - what else is there but language when talking about rules and the written word, which is the medium of communication for a "book", a rule book in this case? If you're not basing your interpretation on the meaning of the words in the book... what are you basing it on? (And, for that matter, why are we "talking"?)
If "your gut feeling" or "your personal paradigm of cosmology", that's fine - but that's not canon, and that's not in the RAW.
No - but if the spell description read "destroys devils...", I'd have to consider what it meant by that.
And Aegis and Wards are two of the biggest exceptions out there. (I can site references to that end if you need them.)
Well, that's fine...
... but your description of "demons" does exactly that, depending on the reading.
And, awkwardly, there are at least two clear ways to read that:
- (Your way) "We may use any of these terms in the rules, and all are interchangeable, and all refer to creatures with IM"
- (My way) "We may use any of these terms in the rules, and altho' distinct, they all refer to creatures with IM".
So, the question remains - does IM = demon, or does demon, and infernal ghost, and corrupt beast = IM?
And here we are.
For me, part of the answer comes from the question of "What happens to the creature once MM is gone?" For Demons, it's stated that they return to the Infernal Realm. For Ghosts (infernal or otherwise), it's stated they are "laid to rest" - a different fate, perhaps?* For Infernally tainted animals, the demonic taint is removed, but the corporeal body remains - possibly still alive. So for me these three designations are distinct in that sense at least. And for me, ims, it makes sense that a spell to affect one isn't right for another. ysmv.
(* Or perhaps not so much, at least for ghosts of the damned. A quick reading of ROP:Infernal supports your interpretation re Infernal ghosts, at least, stating that "...Demons are creatures native to the Infernal Realm, altho' some have their ultimate origin in the mundane realm (infernal ghosts)..." Can't find a reference to corrupt beasts at first pass. I may have to rethink that one, and probably have to accept your interpretation re ghosts to stay true to canon, but from the core book alone my original interpretation has worked for me.)