Iconic Outsiders (Tanaari, Baatezu, Yugoloths, Modrons, etc.) - How many species?

[Baron Opal]

I remember in the boxed sets two fold-out posters that showed the geneology of the different breeds. It was cool to see the branching of how fiends matured. One of the things I miss about selling all of my Planescape stuff.

 

[Nyaricus]

request:

Could the OP change the way the title of this thread is written? As is, the general page has a bottom scroll-bar due to the long, un-spaced way the thread title is written and it's really annoying to veiw it like that in Firefox - which already has less "head space" than IE

something like this: 'Baatezu / Tanari / Yugoloths / Eladrin / Guardinals / Archons / Modrons / Slaad / Rilmani - How many?' would be a great improvement.

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd like to buy a space or five in the subject line. Sidescrolling is Chaotic Suck.

 

[Hussar]

Thirded for the subject line. It's also screwing up my main page as well. Some of us poor folk only have small screens.

Just as a question to those whose planar knowledge far exceeds my own. Is the Planescape stuff actually considered canon for any setting other than Planescape? Having never played Planescape, I cannot recall seeing much of the above actually being included in core.

 

[Shemeska]

Just as a question to those whose planar knowledge far exceeds my own. Is the Planescape stuff actually considered canon for any setting other than Planescape? Having never played Planescape, I cannot recall seeing much of the above actually being included in core.

Yes it is.

Planescape wasn't so much a seperate setting as it was a metasetting for the planes of all of the various TSR settings; Planescape was/is a 'setting' focused on the planes of DnD rather than a single world on the prime material like FR/Dragonlance/Greyhawk/etc. Looking at the 3e treatment of the planes, really a majority of stuff beyond the basic outline, is in most cases just watered down Planescape. Heck, Sigil itself appears in the 3.5 DMG.

A caveat to my original statement though. The transition to 3e did make some largely irrelevant alterations to the planes (nerfing the deep ethereal, and correspondingly expanding the astral, only because of mechanical changes to a few spells, not for any actual flavor reason) but I can't immediately think of anything from Planescape that was actually explicitely retconned in 3e (unless you want to count FR randomly giving itself a new cosmology with no in game explanation). A number of things haven't been touched upon in 3e material, but that can probably be chalked up to 3.x just being less detailed and typically not having the space to devote to cover everything in the same level of depth as the PS source material they're drawing upon for planar stuff.

 

[the Jester]

Is the Planescape stuff actually considered canon for any setting other than Planescape?

In most of the worlds published by TSR during 2e, yes. There was considerable overlap/crossover. Dragonlance might have been an exception, I dunno.

 

[Hussar]

In other words, if I don't play 2e/have never played 2e, then 99% of the Planescape stuff is irrelavent since most of it does not appear in 3e. Thanks.

 

[NiTessine]

In most of the worlds published by TSR during 2e, yes. There was considerable overlap/crossover. Dragonlance might have been an exception, I dunno.

Nope, there were no exceptions. They were all interconnected, though one of Dragonlance's great upheavals had the side effect of sealing off the crystal sphere and destablising the portals leading there.

Athas of Dark Sun and Aebrynis of Birthright were also pretty distant from the planes and spelljamming routes, but the connections were there, too.

 

[Shemeska]

In other words, if I don't play 2e/have never played 2e, then 99% of the Planescape stuff is irrelavent since most of it does not appear in 3e. Thanks.

Umm... read anything on the planes in DnD in 3e, be it the DMG, Manual of the Planes, Planar Handbook, BoVD, BoED, any of the githyanki/githzerai details in various books, and virtually any planar monster in the MM, MM2, FF, MM3. That's all drawing from various Planescape sources, just usually in less detail.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, it's not less detail - it's generic detail. Most of the stuff I see rhymed off around about planar details has to do with either Forgotten Realms or Planescape itself. Since FR is not the core setting and neither is PS, I feel pretty safe in completely ignoring it.

Take the idea that Tiamat is a devil from another recent thread. Now, going strictly from 3e, there is nothing in any book which states that. The only real information that Tiamat is a devil comes from 1e. Sorry, not part of my ruleset. Don't care.

Or the idea that various demon lords are not gods. I look at that and say, yup, they are not gods. They're demon lords. They may be just as powerful, but, they are not gods. They can be killed for one thing while most divine things can't be. Works for me and is completely fitting for the ruleset I use.

Trying to force canon from another ruleset in a settiing not designed for current rules seems a little strange to me. Yes, that's what it used to say about 'loths or demons or whatever. But, it isn't what it says now. If I use the Planescape setting, then fine, I should use that canon. But, if I'm playing in Eberron or Scarred Lands, what possible use is this material to me?