Beyond the base zombie, 4e provides 5 additional types of zombies... with nothing about the origin of any (just a blurb on tactics).
Well, we are told that
Most zombies are created using a foul ritual. Once roused, a zombie obeys its creator and wants nothing more than to kill and consume the living.
Corpses left in places corrupted by supernatural energy from the Shadowfell sometimes rise as zombies on their own. These zombies have no master and generally attack all living creatures they encounter.
So I think this is the origin of all zombies, including hulks (presumably they come from bigger bodies, given their size) and gravehounds (which presumably come from dogs or wolves, given their name, their attacks and their pictuer). Chillborn have a cold aura, do cold damage, are shrouded in a mist (according to the picture - and I think we can infer it's an icy mist) and explode in a burst of cold when killed. Given their name, I would guess that they might arise from corpses corrupted in cold places; or just that they are zombies particularly expressive of the "chill of the grave".
I'll agree that we are not told how rotwing zombies get their batwings. I personally didn't find that that impeded my desire or ability to use rotwing zombies in my game, but I may be an outlier in this respect.
Turning to gnolls in 4e, they are "feral, demon-woshipping marauders that kill, pillage, and destroy. They attack without warning and slaughter without mercy all in the name of the demon lord Yeenoghu". There is nothing anywhere that describes what exactly they are though beyond "medium natural humanoid" and a picture that looks like the hyena members of the Lion King musical were going on a rampage.
There is also all of this (MM p 133):
Gnolls are nomadic and rarely stay in one place for long. When gnolls attack and pillage a settlement, they leave nothing behind except razed buildings and gnawed corpses.
Gnolls often decorate their armor and encampments with the bones of their victims. Impatient and unskilled artisans, they wear patchwork armor and wield weapons stolen from their victims.
Gnolls detest physical labor and often use slaves to perform menial chores. The life of a slave in a gnoll camp is brutal and short. That said, slaves who show strength and
savagery might be indoctrinated into the gnoll vanguard. Such creatures are usually broken in mind and spirit, having become as cruel and ruthless as their captors.
Gnolls are often encountered with hyenas, which they keep as pets and hunting animals. They also work with demons. As the mortal instruments of the demon lord Yeenoghu, who is called the Beast of Butchery and Ruler of Ruin, gnolls constantly perform atrocities. When not scouring the land in Yeenoghu’s name, gnolls fight among themselves and participate in rituals that involve acts of depravity and self-mutilation.
Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with.
Here is what the
2nd ed MM has to offer:
Gnolls are large, evil, hyena-like humanoids that roam about in loosely organized bands. Gnolls seek to overwhelm their opponents by sheer numbers, using horde tactics.
Gnolls are most often encountered underground or inside abandoned ruins. When above ground they operate primarily at night. Gnoll society is ruled by the strongest, using fear and intimidation.
Gnolls eat anything warm blooded, favoring intelligent creatures over animals because they scream better. They will completely hunt out an area before moving on. It may take several years for the game to return.
There is also the obligatory demographic information. Taken in total, I don't see how this is more flavour than the 4e MM, or even really comparable flavour.
Given that tastes vary, and that 2e shows its possible to put lots of text on a page and still get in pictures and stat blocks, how about both suggested mythic content for people who like that and demographics and other stuff for people who like that part?
If the designers want to stick in demography that's their prerogative, though I would prefer that it be called out in a discrete part of the entry so I don't have to wade through it to find the interesting stuff.
The point of my post upthread wasn't to dispute the inclusion of demography. It was to deny the claim made by [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] (but also very frequently by very many others) that, in contrast to the 2nd ed MM which "strikes the balance of crunch and flavor that I want, and only in a few instances since then have we really seen as well done of an integration of stat blocks and ecology . . . the 4e MM . . . had -under virtually any metric- the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D".
So far I've compared the entries for goblins, gnolls, galeb duhr and zombies and established that this is not true. Nor is it true for hook horrors. I cited the 4e text upthread; here is the
2nd ed text:
Hook horrors do not have a smell to humans and demihumans, but an animal would detect a dry musty odor. They communicate in a series of clicks and clacks made by the exoskeleton at their throats. In a cave, this eerie sound can echo a long way. They can use this to estimate cavern sizes and distances, much like the sonic radar of a bat.
The eyesight of the hook horrors is very poor. They are blinded in normal light. They use their extremely acute hearing to track and locate prey.
A clan of hook horrors most often lives in caves and underground warrens. The entrance is usually up a vertical or steeply sloped rock wall. Each family unit in the clan has its own small cavern off a central cave area. The clan's eggs are kept in the safest, most defensible place. The clan is ruled by the eldest female, who never participates in combat. The eldest male, frequently the mate of the clan ruler, takes charge of all hunting or other combat situations and is considered the war chieftain. Members of a clan rarely fight each other. They may quarrel or not cooperate, but they rarely come to blows. Clans sometimes fight each other, but only when there is a bone of contention, such as territorial disputes. It is rare for a clan of hook horrors to want to rule large areas or to conquer other clans.
Hook horrors have poor relationships with other races. Although they do not foolishly attack strong parties, generally other creatures are considered to be meat. They retreat when faced with a stronger group. Hook horrors do not recognize indebtedness or gratitude. Their simple language does not even have a term for these concepts. Just because a player character saves the life of a hook horror does not mean that it will feel grateful and return the favor.
Although hook horrors are basically omnivores, they prefer meat. They can eat just about any cave-dwelling fungus, plants, lichens, or animals. Hook horrors are well acclimated to cave life. They have few natural predators, although anything that managed to catch one would try to eat it.
Compared to the 4e info, I learn a little more about their cave layout, their smell, and that things that catch them will eat them (though that may not be a uniquely defining property of hook horrors). But the 4e info tells me about their preference for drow flesh. This is another example that fails to persuade me of the greater detail of flavour text in the 2nd ed MM.
If people don't
like the 4e flavour text - for example, because they dislike the mythical history it presupposes - that's their prerogative. But to assert that, "by any metric", it has "the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D" is simply false. As the examples I've posted illustrate.
