D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Heirs of Gith

[Klaus]

I voted for Lawful Neutral when I first read the article, but on consideration I think they should be Any Neutral (or even Any), with a strong tendency towards Lawful Neutral in their warriors and authority figures.

Essentially, they consider the discipline and philosophy of the teachings of Zerthimon an ideal which they try to live up to, rather than an all-encompassing lifestyle.

I voted for Lawful Neutral because the image of a race developing an extremely disciplined and ordered society amid a plane of roiling, unadultered Chaos is very appealing, IMHO.

 

[steeldragons]

As with some who couldn't see the point of getting interested in Modrons and Slaad, here I am entirely ambivalent. The gith don't exist in my universe. I have no need of them or interest in them. I don't think they do anything interesting and I don't find there to be anything interesting about them.

So, make of them whatever you want, I'll keep ignoring them as pointless.

I was actually thinking the same thing (and the similarities to the moron/salads). Have never used them...don't really think of them as existing in my campaign world...(which I've never thought the modrons or slaadi do either...I just don't use/have a lot of "planar jumping around" in most of my games.)

They do seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time thinking (or at least writing) about corner case planar stuff? Is it just me? Why do all of these niche planar things demand such attention to potentially "rework" fluff and flavor and, in most cases, trying to lean toward "redesign" the look...Right? I'm not the only one noticing that, am I?

Article after article sounds the same, "We can redesign these things too right? You want us to redesign them, don't you? Pleeeez? Look into my eyes...you're getting sleepy...You want us to redesign these things and make them look/act/come from something totally different than they did before...and you think that'll be kewl. When we 'ask'...that's what you want...3-2-1. *snap*... Here's a poll! Tell us what you think. "

But, yeah...the above from Celebrim is pretty much my take on "the gith" as well.
--SD

 

[pemerton]

The idea that having self-control and discipline must make you Lawful is a little grating.

Yet seems to be entailed by the long-standing requirement that monks - who otherwise live lives completely outside ordinary society and its daily hierarchies and mores - must be Lawful.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm wondering...could, "Monks must be Lawful" but "Githzerai are monks...and they're CN" be useful? Does it lend to the "alien-ness" of extraplanar creatures and the Gith, specifically, have always supposed to be about. OH MY GODS! They're monks..and they can be Chaotic Neutral Monks!?!? How's that possible?! Noone in the Prime material can do that!

Is that a bug or a feature?

They're Cheddar Monks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yet seems to be entailed by the long-standing requirement that monks - who otherwise live lives completely outside ordinary society and its daily hierarchies and mores - must be Lawful.

Personally, I don't like that rule, either.

Excludes all sorts of interesting wandering monastic weirdos.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why I brought up Githzerai being intensely personal in their concept of lawfulness. A person who wanders the world and lives by a personal code of conduct and taboos is every bit as constrained and ordered as someone who abides by the laws of his society.

While we may not recognize the patterns & code, the strictures are still quite real to the person who lives by them.

If it helps, think of it the ethical analog of OCD. Or, more darkly, the difference between an organized and disorganized serial killer.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That's why I brought up Githzerai being intensely personal in their concept of lawfulness. A person who wanders the world and lives by a personal code of conduct and taboos is every bit as constrained and ordered as someone who abides by the laws of his society.

While we may not recognize the patterns & code, the strictures are still quite real to the person who lives by them.

If it helps, think of it the ethical analog of OCD. Or, more darkly, the difference between an organized and disorganized serial killer.

I see githzerai (the non-monastic kind) as more the opposite: to me, they represent the "I don't care" aspect of Chaotic Neutral. When you have no moral code, anything is permissible.

 

[Tovec]

They do seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time thinking (or at least writing) about corner case planar stuff? Is it just me? Why do all of these niche planar things demand such attention to potentially "rework" fluff and flavor and, in most cases, trying to lean toward "redesign" the look...Right? I'm not the only one noticing that, am I?

No, you aren't the only one noticing it. That is exactly what I was thinking. They mentioned the Grimlocks (right?) when talking about the githzeri. Haven't seen any articles on them, no medusa, kracken, hydras, remoraz, howler, unicorn, vargouille, etc. We almost certainly won't unless there is something controversial about them. But I think that is the key. They need to get feedback on the things they changed (especially with 4e and sometimes with 3e). Throughout most editions most creatures remained very similar, changing only to accomodate minor fluxes in rules changes. With the creatures they have discussed there have been much bigger and more noticible changes; especially the demons and archons a little while back. Those were more than updates they were large concept alterations. They are the things that people will disagree about how they should work. What I don't understand, and why I agree with SD, is how much time they are looking at and focusing on these corner cases, why do we need to do only 2 at a time? In general most people seem to be siding with planescape/great wheel/pre-4e ideas most of the time, to one degree or another. Why not start with that as an assumption (or outright ask them) and then move onto corner cases, like how modrons should look, but then do this for like 10 creatures at once instead of 2.

Example of what they could write: Of the (alignment) exemplars, which of these do you prefer (give example of 1e,2e,3e,4e, then concept 5e)? I prefer the insane nature of the 4e design, mixed with the skirmishing element of 2e and this random bit of lore from 3e.

Instead we are getting 2 creatures at a time and we are focusing on the niche cases, and by in large using a single older version and asking how well that one version applies to the concept that people have in their heads now. How well would it work to use the 1e version of goblin and asking the kinds of questions we are asking about Slaadi and Gith?

I mean this article series is supposed to primarily be about the intangibles right? Or did I miss something along the way?

Article after article sounds the same, "We can redesign these things too right? You want us to redesign them, don't you? Pleeeez? Look into my eyes...you're getting sleepy...You want us to redesign these things and make them look/act/come from something totally different than they did before...and you think that'll be kewl. When we 'ask'...that's what you want...3-2-1. *snap*... Here's a poll! Tell us what you think. "

I don't see this very much except in the questions. "By the gods this design is great, please stop giving me [expletive removed ]" or "Decent, but the other gods would be jealous so rethink." I think that has more to do with being playful with questions that could otherwise get very boring and representative, more than it has to do with being brainwashy. Then again who knows as maybe I've been brainwashed.

 

[Klaus]

They do seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time thinking (or at least writing) about corner case planar stuff? Is it just me? Why do all of these niche planar things demand such attention to potentially "rework" fluff and flavor and, in most cases, trying to lean toward "redesign" the look...Right? I'm not the only one noticing that, am I?

While it may seem that way, it's actually far from true. The column has covered a staggering ammount of creatures already:

- Githianky and Githzerai
- Modrons and Slaadi
- Kuo-Toa, Sahuagin, Bullywug
- Drow, Drider, Duergar, Grimlock
- Gelatinous Cube, Grey Ooze, Mimic, Ochre Jelly, Otyugh, Roper
- Ankheg, Carrion Crawler, Purple Worm, Rust Monster, Stirge
- Displacer Beast, Blink Dog, Hell Hound, Winter Wolf, Worg
- Lycanthropes, Doppleganger
- Basilisk, Cockatrice, Gorgon, Medusa
- Cyclops, Titan, Ettin
- Centaur, Satyr, Harpy, Minotaur
- Sphinx, Chimera, Hydra
- Griffon, Hippogriff, Pegasus, Wyvern, Roc
- Metallic Dragons
- Chromatic Dragons
- Golems
- Elementals, Genies
- Celestials
- Dryad, Hag, Nymph, Wee Folk
- Demons & Devils
- Beholder, Mind Flayer, Aboleth
- Ghosts, Specters
- Wights, Wraiths
- Mummies, Liches
- Skeletons, Zombies, Ghouls, Vampires

Here are the WM archives:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=wanderingmonsters

 

[Tovec]

While it may seem that way, it's actually far from true. The column has covered a staggering ammount of creatures already:

- Githianky and Githzerai
- Modrons and Slaadi
- Kuo-Toa, Sahuagin, Bullywug
- Drow, Drider, Duergar, Grimlock
- Gelatinous Cube, Grey Ooze, Mimic, Ochre Jelly, Otyugh, Roper
- Ankheg, Carrion Crawler, Purple Worm, Rust Monster, Stirge
- Displacer Beast, Blink Dog, Hell Hound, Winter Wolf, Worg
- Lycanthropes, Doppleganger
- Basilisk, Cockatrice, Gorgon, Medusa
- Cyclops, Titan, Ettin
- Centaur, Satyr, Harpy, Minotaur
- Sphinx, Chimera, Hydra
- Griffon, Hippogriff, Pegasus, Wyvern, Roc
- Metallic Dragons
- Chromatic Dragons
- Golems
- Elementals, Genies
- Celestials
- Dryad, Hag, Nymph, Wee Folk
- Demons & Devils
- Beholder, Mind Flayer, Aboleth
- Ghosts, Specters
- Wights, Wraiths
- Mummies, Liches
- Skeletons, Zombies, Ghouls, Vampires

Here are the WM archives:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=wanderingmonsters

Huh. This also seems to apply to me. I could revise my post with new monsters though, as there are MANY they have not (and will continue not to have) looked at. I'm still going to say there is no sense to discuss things that have not changed (again, primarily 4e, but also sometimes in 3e). They'll just reprint the same thing that has been in print for the last 30 years and call it a day. Bully.