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

[gyor]

The Aasmon/4e Angels serve the good Gods, thats thier main theme, whereas the main theme of Celetial Elderin, Archons, and Guardianals is serving thier alignment. Guardianals and Celestial Elderin don't really serve the Good Gods, they ally with them, and Archons serve law first and as a byproduct they respect the authority of Lawful Good Gods. Still the main Agents, the vast majority of a Good Gods servants are Angels, even the Seldarine prefers to rely on Angels. The Evil Gods have no real equivalant. They have a smattering of fallen angels. That's it. Devils only serve Asmodeaus and the ArchDevils, with mercanies hiring out to some evil gods. Now individual Gods my have thier own special outsider servants, like Sharess and her divine minions, Lolth with her Yolchols, ect... but must don't. But thier is nothing like Angels right now for evil, they need thier own evil diety outsider race. Maybe it shouldn't be Yugoloths and Demodands should serve evil Titans.

 

[Shemeska]

Honestly I'd prefer for there to be no unified race of servitor outsiders for evil gods. It doesn't make as much sense as it does for good gods, and outside of 4e evil angels there hasn't been a recognized need for such a niche much a less a need to fill it for the game's history. Within a distinct PoL setting perhaps, but even then I don't personally see the rationale for the concept versus potential alternatives.

As that alternative: giving evil deities each their own distinct servitors tailed to them and unique to them, or potentially shared among evil gods that themselves have a strong link such as a common origin/relation/etc. But for the most part have Set with his own unique servitors, Hexator with his, Sekolah with his, Bane with his, Shar with hers, etc.

Examples: Yochlols for Lolth, and the Abishai for Tiamat (though the latter are more loaned to Tiamat by the Dark 8 than absolutely specific to her, though she did have a hand in their creation IIRC alongside the pit fiend Pearza). Give other evil deities their own breed of unique servitors.

 

[steeldragons]

The Aasmon/4e Angels serve the good Gods, thats thier main theme, whereas the main theme of Celetial Elderin, Archons, and Guardianals is serving thier alignment. Guardianals and Celestial Elderin don't really serve the Good Gods, they ally with them, and Archons serve law first and as a byproduct they respect the authority of Lawful Good Gods. Still the main Agents, the vast majority of a Good Gods servants are Angels, even the Seldarine prefers to rely on Angels. The Evil Gods have no real equivalant. They have a smattering of fallen angels. That's it. Devils only serve Asmodeaus and the ArchDevils, with mercanies hiring out to some evil gods. Now individual Gods my have thier own special outsider servants, like Sharess and her divine minions, Lolth with her Yolchols, ect... but must don't. But thier is nothing like Angels right now for evil, they need thier own evil diety outsider race. Maybe it shouldn't be Yugoloths and Demodands should serve evil Titans.

*Bold/Emphasis mine.

Thanks gyor. So, basically, you're saying there are no evil god servitors established in D&D "canon/core." Thank you. That is quite useful, and what I personally thought to be the case.

We need these things because they are a part of what D&D has been, and certain people who play D&D are going to expect to be able to play with these things. There is no compelling reason to deny them this, and plenty of reasons to accommodate this. Because it is good lore with good value and good fun anchoring it. Dragonlance is part of D&D, as is Planescape, as is FR. No one gets to tell kender fans that they're having badwrong fun.

annnnd, no one is telling them that. They [we] are telling them, if you want kender, GO LOOK IN A DRAGONLANCE/KRYNN BOOK NOT THE CORE MM!

I hope,very much, there is one...have all the krynnish-minotaur-pirate-kender-tinker-gnome-maelstrom-ishtar-solace-raistlin-wannabes and solomnian-knights-towers-of-high-sorcery fun you WANT! No one is disputing, infringing or standing in your way to your right to go do that!

Implicit in this is the assumption that a Dragonlance game is not also a D&D game. That's not true.

And, again, nooooo. A Dragonlance game is not a D&D game...it's a game set in the Dragonlance setting, which is an intellectual property owned by D&D, yes... but not the same as a game set in the Forgotten Realms Setting...or the Ravenloft setting...or...the Planecape setting.

Kender are part of D&D.

Maybe yours. Not mine. Kender are a part of Krynn. Yes. If you play D&D in Krynn, then sure, kender are a part of YOUR D&D.

Here's a start: look at the decades of writing that is already in place.

Like the decades of writing in place for what a high elf was? No? Something different you mean? Follow that lil' gem's reasoning?

Well, since this is directly related to the whole daemons as serving the gods nonsense (that no one is actually arguing about), let's take a peek at gyor's thorough explanation above, shall we?

What, exactly, in the "decades of writing that is already in place" am I supposed to find that tells me where/who serves the evil gods? Cuz a few posts now have basically said, there's no one specific that does that.

Write what you know. If you don't know, educate yourself. Don't presume that your ignorance on the topic means that you're the first to think of it.

1) I'll thank you, moderator or no, not to raise your voice to me. <thunder rumble> Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks! <rumbles away>

2) I am fairly well educated, thank you...and to the point of the discussion, regarding D&D it seems there are no servitors of evil gods, so I think I'm fairly well educated on the matter. Thank you.

and 3) I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

Oh, and PS: If you don't think I'm being honest in my representation, I'd suggest stepping out of the conversation. Personal attacks aren't exactly going to persuade me.

<rolls eyes> It wasn't a "personal attack." I think you are being honest...as you see it...I simply don't think that what you respond to is always what is being said. You do have a knack for ignoring and/or editing out bits of posts that either don't serve your argument or, I can only suppose, you have no response to. That's not being "dishonest" but, as I said, willfully ignoring or avoiding points that are being made. I don't see how that mandates my "stepping out of the conversation."

 

[steeldragons]

Oh. and one more thing about this...

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.

a) no one is suggesting that they "categorically" be made that...and b) You've never served someone you hated before?

As someone who spent his high school and college years as a waiter and bartender (and many more past college as a bartender as well) I can tell you, with complete sincerity, it is possible to serve/work for someone and hate them simultaneously.

Suddenly, in order to play with lore that you've used perfectly fine for decades,

I guess you have. Not me.

you need to make a change to the game's assumptions.

Why? You want daemons to predate the gods and hate them in your universe? Bully. Go for it! That is your game. Your assumptions about what happens with these creatures in your world. You don't need to change "the game's assumptions." It's your game.

I want daemons who are scheming conniving free-agents among the lower planes...I'm not altering any of my game assumptions. The game is not, somehow, forcing me to change how I want things to be...

You don't have to do that to play a pirate minotaur.

Of course you do. If you want to play a pirate minotaur, you have to say, in your game that that is ok. You have to alter your game to include pirate minotaurs. I don't allow minotaur pcs in my games...the "game assumptions" don't tell me minotaur pcs are ok....If you're playing in the Dragonlance setting, then it's ok, cuz that's what Krynn minotaurs do. It's not what minotaurs do in mine/my world/game or any other specifically outside of Dragonlance that I know of [and NO, WoW doesn't count! It's a video game not D&D]. But I don't play in Krynn so my game assumptions are just fine.

There is absolutely nothing you are saying through all of these posts that cannot be easily transferred to apply to daemons...sorry, "yugoloths" just as well as any other creatures brought up.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

but with the 'loths: if they are defined as "servants of the evil gods," that doesn't leave any room for PS yugoloths.

So why can't we say "Some yugoloths are servants of evil gods"? Or better might be "Some evil gods have yugoloths as servants".

Honestly I'd prefer for there to be no unified race of servitor outsiders for evil gods. It doesn't make as much sense as it does for good gods, and outside of 4e evil angels there hasn't been a recognized need for such a niche much a less a need to fill it for the game's history.

For a good part of the game's history - I would say from OD&D through at least the early years of AD&D - I think it was assumed that devils and demons served (or, often, were) the powers of evil. Anti-clerics and anti-paladins consorted with, summoned and controlled demons. The chief evil god in any published adventure - Lolth - was herself a dweller in the demonweb pits and served by daemons.

The idea that evil gods are quite distinct from the hierarcheis of devils and demons, and hence have no default servants, I think has its origin in the original Manual of the Planes, because that was the first attempt to colocate the various gods from DDG with the basically dualist, quasi-gnostic theology of classic D&D (lawful/good gods and angels on one side, chaotic/evil gods with devils and demons on the other).

 

[RichGreen]

So why can't we say "Some yugoloths are servants of evil gods"? Or better might be "Some evil gods have yugoloths as servants".

That doesn't sound too restrictive and would fit with them working as mercenaries, wouldn't it?

Cheers


Rich

 

[pemerton]

That doesn't sound too restrictive and would fit with them working as mercenaries, wouldn't it?

Yes, although good also go beyond that because "serve" could mean "serve for pay" but also "serve out of loyalty" or "serve out of desire" or other non-mercenary motivations.

 

[avin]

o play a pirate minotaur, you have to say, in your game that that is ok. You have to alter your game to include pirate minotaurs. I don't allow minotaur pcs in my games...

I'm confused, so D&D should cater only to "your" campaign?

Halfling does not exist in two of my homebrews, guess I should start telling to everybody else to alter their games to include that race.

What about Dragonborn, should we get rid them too and tell 4E fans to alter their games?

I disagree. 4E did it right, giving a lot of races for us to play, including minotaurs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So why can't we say "Some yugoloths are servants of evil gods"? Or better might be "Some evil gods have yugoloths as servants".

That's not a big deal ("canon" even!). It's just not a major part of what makes yugoloths interesting as props in D&D, and is a more important part of the bag of other critters. So in that case my criticism would be more about wasting wordcount on something that isn't going to be very useful at getting at what makes yugoloths fun to play with. It arises out of their more interesting mercenary tendencies, which can include but does not limit them to the occasional evil god.

And, again, nooooo. A Dragonlance game is not a D&D game...it's a game set in the Dragonlance setting, which is an intellectual property owned by D&D, yes... but not the same as a game set in the Forgotten Realms Setting...or the Ravenloft setting...or...the Planecape setting.

...and the game that people are playing when they play in those settings ain't GURPS, is it?

Getting at this might be getting at the underlying issue here, in all its potential gatekeeping/tribalist finery. It has a lot to do with local design and what "core" means in relation to that. And on this, I come down on the side of the 2e Monstrous Manual, for a lot of reasons.

As a way to illustrate this, this comment:

Maybe yours. Not mine. Kender are a part of Krynn. Yes. If you play D&D in Krynn, then sure, kender are a part of YOUR D&D.

....is an example of an entirely artificial, largely irrelevant distinction.

In fact, you could make a Venn Diagram: The circle of Dragonlance overlaps the circle of D&D, and the circle of Kender is within the circle of Dragonlance...which is within the circle of D&D...which means that Kender are part of D&D.

 

[Echohawk]

In fact, you could make a Venn Diagram: The circle of Dragonlance overlaps the circle of D&D, and the circle of Kender is within the circle of Dragonlance...which is within the circle of D&D...which means that Kender are part of D&D.

That diagram immediately made me wonder about the kender who fall outside of both the Dragonlance and D&D circles. I now have a mental picture of a bunch of kender somehow escaping from the confines of the D&D multiverse to invade people's gardens. Maybe substituting themselves for traditional garden gnomes...