Li Shenron
Legend
"Immortal Guardian" just equals Outsider... why a different type? All Outsiders are "immortal" (of course, in the D&D sense that they don't die until they meet a party of PCs), and "guardian" is just a job.
D&D 5E Wandering Monsters - I Don't Know What It Is, But I Like It!
hafrogman
Adventurer
When reading the article, I didn't actually get the impression he was suggesting Immortal Guardian as a type, just a justification for the typing them as 'Celestial' because they've already described Celestials as immortal (or immune to aging or whatever), where as if they were monstrosities, having them locked in a tomb would raise such questions as 'why is it still alive?' and 'what did it eat?'
Monstrosities are, for lack of a better term, natural. They may or may not be native to the prime material, but they are mortal. They eat, breed and die like any other creature. Celestials (and presumably fiends, elementals and the like) are immortal, not bound by such terrestrial concerns.
Monstrosities are, for lack of a better term, natural. They may or may not be native to the prime material, but they are mortal. They eat, breed and die like any other creature. Celestials (and presumably fiends, elementals and the like) are immortal, not bound by such terrestrial concerns.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Probably fey.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I like lumping them into the celesitals, and I like that he's thinking about them as related to the pegasus and the unicorn and even sphinx and guardian naga, which are absolutely the same sort of monster concept.
I'm not enamored of the idea of them as "pets" per se. I imagine a low-level lantern archon would actually really respect and admire a shedu or a lammasu, and I don't like the "oh, he's just a big puppy!" effect on a being of great wisdom and justice who is supposed to be kind of frickin' intimidating.
The "immortal guardian" idea is nice. Though we do not need to return to the days when everything in a monster book was there to fight the PC's and had to justify it's inclusion based on that criteria. It's a nice idea, though, certainly worth keeping.
Of course, now we're getting into the blurry lines between celestials and fey, what with being guardian spirits over certain locations. Though perhaps what distinguishes them is their feelings on law vs. chaos: fey are wild, untamed, unpredicatable, chaotic wilderness spirits. Immortal guardians are more obedient, loyal, wise, learned, lawful spirits of civilization. The fey are Wizard magic, the guardians are Cleric magic?
Well, I guess if they HAVE to make a distinction, there are worse ones. I'm still all for dropping those blurry lines, though.
I do hate that the poll won't let me progress without hating on the Opinicus (poor bastard).
I'm not enamored of the idea of them as "pets" per se. I imagine a low-level lantern archon would actually really respect and admire a shedu or a lammasu, and I don't like the "oh, he's just a big puppy!" effect on a being of great wisdom and justice who is supposed to be kind of frickin' intimidating.
The "immortal guardian" idea is nice. Though we do not need to return to the days when everything in a monster book was there to fight the PC's and had to justify it's inclusion based on that criteria. It's a nice idea, though, certainly worth keeping.
Of course, now we're getting into the blurry lines between celestials and fey, what with being guardian spirits over certain locations. Though perhaps what distinguishes them is their feelings on law vs. chaos: fey are wild, untamed, unpredicatable, chaotic wilderness spirits. Immortal guardians are more obedient, loyal, wise, learned, lawful spirits of civilization. The fey are Wizard magic, the guardians are Cleric magic?
Well, I guess if they HAVE to make a distinction, there are worse ones. I'm still all for dropping those blurry lines, though.
I do hate that the poll won't let me progress without hating on the Opinicus (poor bastard).
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
The problem I have with calling them celestials is that I'm not sure they should all be outsiders. Conceptually, I like that they're moving from a taxonomy approach to more of a world-view one. Beasts are beasts. Monstrosities are giant, evil, and dangerous creatures. But what are powerful, good aligned, intelligent, non-humanoid beings called? Noble beasts, maybe? I'm not sure. Western culture doesn't seem to have a developed concept of these in the same way Asian cultures do.
Plaguescarred
D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
I am good with them as Celestials encased in mortal flesh
Probably fey.
Agh, no!
They are a tough one, and Celestial or Humanoid don't quite fit the Rilmani.
Klaus
First Post
I vastly prefer the taxonomy (origin + shape) types. The current "monstrosity" type is a pet peeve of mine. The name sounds clunky, and the distinction doesn't make much sense. Make "celestial" an origin and "beast" a type that covers non-humanoid, magical creatures ("animal" covers regular fauna, wether they're dogs or owlbears). Some will say "that makes assumptions about the game", but stuff like "monstrosity" also make assumptions about the game. Why would the farmers call adventurers for a worg (a monstrosity) and not for a troll (a giant)? Or a dire wolf (a beast)?
Similar Threads
