D&D 5E Monsters of Many Names - Wandering Monsters (Yugoloth!)

[I'm A Banana]

But, apparently that's perfectly acceptable. It's okay that this 5e minotaur looks nothing like any previous version of a minotaur, other than physically.

But, I want to change a single sentence of Planescape and you'll argue with me for 20 pages? And I'm being unreasonable? I'm the one that wants to "completely rewrite" a monster for changing a single line that only appears in a single setting? And that's unacceptable. But, completely invalidating every single version of a minotaur ever published for any edition is perfectly fine.

[MENTION=2039]RichGreen[/MENTION] 's link to the follow up to that will help you parse that, too: it makes room for all the minotaur types, without invalidating any of them.

And yeah, I'm going to defend the existing merits of a thing. Minotaurs, too -- I'm likely on record here as thinking Wyatt's "everything is a Baphomet cultist" approach is narmed. You seem to believe this is about the setting, but it's more about the fact that the existing lore is well and good and fine. It doesn't need to be changed. It doesn't need to be invalidated any more than the minotaur lore needs to be invalidated, any more than kender need to be invalidated. Yugoloth lore as it exists is pretty dang good lore. If you could stop drinking the haterade, you might be able to see that. And if you can't, that's fine, but the least you could do is leave it alone. I can't stop drinking the kender haterade, but I'm not about to pretend that this means that kender should be written out of the game.

So, tell me again how this is not protecting PS lore for PS lore's sake. If you have such a huge issue with maintaining canon, why is it perfectly acceptable to have a completely new minotaur, but, it's not acceptable to even discuss the idea of a god serving yugoloth?

It isn't acceptable to have a minotaur that invalidates other minotaurs. It's not acceptable to demand that the core be changed for no reason. You're not advocating for the original version of these creatures (sans the PS elaboration), you're advocating for a brand new version that invalidates an old version.

It's like: here's a kid playing with some play-doh, having a good time. Then you come along and say: "Hey. That play-doh is dumb. I want to play with action figures! It's now against the rules to play with dumb play-doh in this room, and if you want to play with that dumb stuff you have to do it in the coat closet." How about, instead, that kid gets to keep doing what that kid has fun doing, and get to do what you have fun doing, and you learn to play next to each other, to accept human diversity, and even to learn from each other when she shows you how you can copy a newspaper and stretch it out and you show her the truck that fires 10 missiles at once.

Only, when I advocate for everyone being able to play in the same room, you cry about favoritism. "You just love play-doh, you won't let me put them in the closet, but you think it's okay to put the people who are reading books in the closet because you just love play-doh and think it's the best and that we should all have to play in the same room as people who play with dumb play-doh."

 

[avin]

Using the lesser Eladrin argument: I would accept a lesser Eladrin for our friends in Faerie the same way I accept 4E's idea of medium sized minotaurs as more civilized and large for savage. It's not that hard.

"In my homebrew minotaur are large"
"This is Azeroth, we got Taurens"
"In my homebrew there is ONE minotaur"
"We are playing Scarred Lands, we got Sutaks"

As long everything is suggested, as long there's options, I see no harm in a Monster Manual presenting variations of monsters.

 

[Weather Report]

Yeah, I gotta disagree here Shemeska. Planescape was the only standard, but, hardly a gold one.

You're right, it was platinum.

You've got one hell of an agenda/crusade going, I'll give you that.

 

[Hussar]

It isn't acceptable to have a minotaur that invalidates other minotaurs. It's not acceptable to demand that the core be changed for no reason. You're not advocating for the original version of these creatures (sans the PS elaboration), you're advocating for a brand new version that invalidates an old version.

Brand new? Really? Adding a single line, "Sometimes works with gods" is a totally new monster that resembles the old in no way, shape or form? Particularly considering that the old version NEVER INCLUDED YOUR LORE in core? Heck, I didn't even know about the "hates gods" thing until this thread. Never heard of that before. Why? Because no write up of Yugoloths, outside of Planescape actually includes that lore.

Like I said in the other thread, "hates gods" could actually be a perfectly interesting hook. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I don't really care one way or the other. My point is that any change is automatically rejected if it doesn't follow the lore of one single, specific setting.

Note, I'm not contradicting anything established in core. Nothing. The only thing I'm even talking about contradicting only appears in Planescape. And, if it's a bad idea, fair enough. But, that wasn't why it was rejected out of hand. It was rejected because it countered lore of a single setting.

I do not feel that any single setting should ever get to define lore for the whole game simply because it happens to be true in that setting. If your only justification for the element is that it happens to be true in Setting X, then that is never good enough.

I mean, the Eladrin discussion was exactly the same. Eladrin are bad because they are different from what came in Planescape. They're not bad because the idea of bamf elves are bad. They're not bad because they're mechanically flawed or the idea is stupid. They only bad because they counter the lore of a single setting.

Why should I care? If you play Planescape, you can have your Eladrin, no problem. We both win. But, for some reason, we MUST NOT do anything contrary to Planescape lore. I just don't understand why Planescape gets to dictate to everyone else what D&D must look like.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Brand new? Really? Adding a single line, "Sometimes works with gods" is a totally new monster that resembles the old in no way, shape or form?

Well, you're shifting the goalposts here (from "servants of evil gods" to "sometimes works with gods"), which is a slightly different calculus. Sometimes works with gods? Not a big deal, they're on record as doing that on occasion as befits their mercenary nature.

The race being re-concepted as a species of beings dedicated to serving the evil gods as was originally proposed? That's a new creature. That line isn't supported by anything that's been written about the yugoloths. The original yugoloths were referred to mostly in terms of their summoning and their tendency to work with both demons and devils (implying a mercenary tendency and a tendency to get be involved with evil mortals). Later yugoloths cemented that mercenary tendency and were given nefarious, sinister dark plots and a hatred of the gods. If what we want to do is some crusading purge against all subsequent elaboration, they should be summoned mercenaries (something I've re-iterated is pretty fine with me), not the servants of evil gods.

My point is that any change is automatically rejected if it doesn't follow the lore of one single, specific setting.

I'm pretty much going to reject any change that invalidates the lore of any setting. It's a distinction you don't seem to be really appreciating here. That's sending someone to the closet to play. No one needs to go into the closet, and just because the topic of conversation is PS doesn't mean that I'm going to change my tune when Dark Sun or Dragonlance or Spelljammer is concerned. Just because I'm telling you that you should play next to that kid with the play-doh doesn't mean I'm only favoring play-doh. No one needs to be put in the closet.

We've been over this, this is the point about minotaurs, it has been demonstrated that this is not about one particular setting.

Note, I'm not contradicting anything established in core. Nothing.

No, you're elaborating. And if you're going to do that, why invalidate anything? Why not just go with the elaboration that has already won them a fan-base, and make more relevant and prominent. That's what the thread was about before you dropped by.

So the question becomes: if you want them to be more than they were originally, why not go with the good stuff that's already been done on that front?

I mean, the Eladrin discussion was exactly the same. Eladrin are bad because they are different from what came in Planescape. They're not bad because the idea of bamf elves are bad. They're not bad because they're mechanically flawed or the idea is stupid. They only bad because they counter the lore of a single setting.

The eladrin discussion was distinct for at least one big reason: 4e eladrin don't necessarily invalidate other kinds of eladrin (indeed, the 4e mythos emphasized a diversity about it). Yugoloths as servants of the gods invalidates god-hating yugoloth.

Why should I care? If you play Planescape, you can have your Eladrin, no problem. We both win. But, for some reason, we MUST NOT do anything contrary to Planescape lore. I just don't understand why Planescape gets to dictate to everyone else what D&D must look like.

It's not that PS gets to dictate anything.

It's that old good lore has a value that needs to be kept going forward. You're free not to play with that toy, but it'd be silly to demand that people who like the toy need to go play in the closet. They want to play in the same room. There's no reason not to let them.

 

[steeldragons]

I mean, the Eladrin discussion was exactly the same. Eladrin are bad because they are different from what came in Planescape.

That may be so for the PS fans...but I don't think that's the whole/everyone's reason [and being a human on the internet like to believe that I'm not alone in that ].

They're not bad because the idea of bamf elves are bad.

Though, it is...and I wouldn't sully Nightcrawler's good name by calling them "bamf elves."

They're not bad because they're mechanically flawed or the idea is stupid.

Though, they are and it is.

They only bad because they counter the lore of a single setting.

See above...not to mention going completely against elf lore for the 30 years prior.

I'm pretty much going to reject any change that invalidates the lore of any setting. It's a distinction you don't seem to be really appreciating here.

We'll keep this in mind...continue...

We've been over this, this is the point about minotaurs, it has been demonstrated that this is not about one particular setting.

Except, what it seems everyone wants to fight Hussar about (for however many pages this thread's on now as opposed to the other 20-something pages), and not recognize, is that his point IS about information being altered or rejected due to one particular setting.

And the answer's seem to be "no, it's not about PS saying things must be X in core"...when clearly, PS [and its advocates] is saying "things must be X in core." Whether that setting is Planescape or Krynn or Ravenloft or whatever...this discussion, specifically, involves Planescape lore infiltrating the core assumptions of the game...when Krynn assumptions don't (thank gods)...Eberron assumptions don't (thank gods)...Dark Sun assumptions don't (thank gods)...but Planescape ones, somehow, should be...I just don't see how/where all the disagreement is from.

The eladrin discussion was distinct for at least one big reason: 4e eladrin don't necessarily invalidate other kinds of eladrin (indeed, the 4e mythos emphasized a diversity about it).

No...they just invalidate the entire history of the game regarding "high elves" up to their introduction. But, somehow, that doesn't count as invalidating lore..very basic core lore? So eladrin [as "high elves"] are "ok" then...right.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No...they just invalidate the entire history of the game regarding "high elves" up to their introduction. But, somehow, that doesn't count as invalidating lore..very basic core lore? So eladrin [as "high elves"] are "ok" then...right

That's only true if 4e eladrin are the only eladrin (like they mostly were in 4e). If, instead, they are one variety of eladrin, that leaves room for the other varieties of eladrin without any problem, right there in the MM.

Same with the minotaurs: if Krynn's minotaurs are one variety of minotaur, that leaves room for other varieties of minotaur, right there in the MM.

Or halflings: if kender are one variety of halfling, they don't need to be the only one.

The proposals leave room for multivalence.

Ah, but with the 'loths: if they are defined as "servants of the evil gods," that doesn't leave any room for PS yugoloths. That's a problem. That's telling those who like PS yugoloths that they can't play with the rest of the kids. That's unnecessary, and pointless to boot.

 

[steeldragons]

That's only true if 4e eladrin are the only eladrin (like they mostly were in 4e). If, instead, they are one variety of eladrin, that leaves room for the other varieties of eladrin without any problem, right there in the MM.

No...they are not any variety of eladrin. They are a completely unnecessary rebranding and rewriting of high elves that, as the "cherry on top" of the sundae of unfathomable bad idea/poor judgement it was, were given the name.

Be that as it may, we'll carry on using your assertion...

Same with the minotaurs: if Krynn's minotaurs are one variety of minotaur, that leaves room for other varieties of minotaur, right there in the MM.

Or halflings: if kender are one variety of halfling, they don't need to be the only one.

The proposals leave room for multivalence.

Ah, but with the 'loths: if they are defined as "servants of the evil gods," that doesn't leave any room for PS yugoloths. That's a problem.That's telling those who like PS yugoloths that they can't play with the rest of the kids.

In...what universe, exactly, does that follow any kind of logic?

If you can have one minotaur described one way and another about Krynnish ones...one paragraph about kender <shudder> and another about normal halflings...how, exactly, is it you couldn't have "god-hater" daemons from Planscape and other "god-serving [or dealing with or whatever the argument is now]" ones?

How?

In what fashion does the suggestion "not leave room for PS fans"?! I think...I can't be entirely sure...but I'm pretty sure you've just made [all of these pages across two threads of] Hussar's actual/original point.

Now, I myself would argue that NONE of this belongs in the MM...kender and sailor minotaur pcs belong in a Dragonlance setting book. Warforged belong in an Eberron setting book. "Yugoloths" (and Blood Wars and Sigils and whatever else) belong in a PS setting book with whatever lore exists for them there. End of story.

But if you're saying that these various setting options can be put in "core" [that is, in what will be the official Monster Manual for 5e] along with "traditional" minotaurs and halflings...then why can't/wouldn't Planescape daemons be put in with "traditional/non-PS" daemons?

The problem and I believe much of the argument Hussar is trying to get across is that there isn't really much traditional lore that is NOT Planescape because (I assume mostly due to understandable attempts at cross-marketing schemes) PS was permitted over the passed 20-some years to infiltrate and dictate core lore whereas other settings' conceits have/do not. And that, I agree, should not be permitted any moreso than any other setting's specific lore would be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you can have one minotaur described one way and another about Krynnish ones...one paragraph about kender <shudder> and another about normal halflings...how, exactly, is it you couldn't have "god-hater" daemons from Planscape and other "god-serving [or dealing with or whatever the argument is now]" ones?

How?

It's about the assumptions of the game. The game assumes kender, and also assumes hobittesque halflings. The game assumes Baphomet minotaurs, and also assumes Krynn's minotaurs. The game can assume 4e eladrin exist alongside 2e eladrin.

But if the game assumes that yugoloths are categorically the servants of the evil gods, that doesn't leave room for yugoloths to hate the gods. Suddenly, in order to play with lore that you've used perfectly fine for decades, you need to make a change to the game's assumptions.

You don't have to do that to play a pirate minotaur. As far as we've been told, if you want to play a pirate minotaur, the game will be like, "Cool, we get that, here's what you need."

Writing the game with the assumption that yugoloth are the servants of a evil deities is like when they wrote 4e with the assumption that all eladrin were this particular kind of creature (a creature that had no relation to what had come before), rather than leaving room, as we can project that 5e will do, for the versions that already exist.

If you're interested in creating a variant yugoloth that IS the servant of evil gods, I'd ask a different set of questions. For starters: why don't any of the other creatures that have been the servants of evil gods over the last few decades fill the bill well enough? Why do we NEED a variant yugoloth that does that?

But I gathered from his assertions that he wasn't actually proposing the change (but rather debating the reason for opposing the change), that this wasn't really Hussar's main point.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I'm in no way suggesting that the yugoloths should serve the evil gods, but who does actually serve them? The evil angels in the 4e MM? Demons and devils? Night hags?

I've just realised I have no idea!

Cheers


Rich