ComradeGnull
First Post
Hmm, I've said it before for DDN monsters, and on reflection it applies here - the background given does seem too prescriptive. Minotaurs as a transformed thing I still see as a good idea; it fits well for the original "core concept". But the stuff about Baphomet and tying it to a specific background element is unhelpful. Leaving it more undefined would help- the 'true' cause of the transformation should be mysterious, suspected to be a divine curse, but no-one really knows. And maybe a ritual can "catalyse" it. That would leave far more space for GMs to set up world-situations that would be fun to explore.
I think that's a decent balanced approach- something that suggests ideas, but doesn't set in stone one conception of how a creature functions in the game world. For example, in the Minotaur description you could say: 'Legend tells of minotaurs born of a union between man and bull, and of bestial men transformed into minotaurs through the worship of dark gods. In some lands, sages speak of whole societies of minotaurs who live and work like men, building cities and sailing ships. In other lands, minotaurs are fearsome, lone aberrations created by magic to guard subterranean mazes and hidden treasure.'
Touch on several options, mention the mythical origins, mention the possibility of entire races, but don't tie a DM down to a specific conception of a creature in the flavor text. It's easy to say 'anyone can ignore the flavor text and make their own'- much better to actively encourage creative thinking and include a few reminders that you are meant to make the game 'yours'.