Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Yeah. I'm ignoring most of the 5e Gnoll canon in favour of Setting Gnoll canon.
Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.Yeah. I'm ignoring most of the 5e Gnoll canon in favour of Setting Gnoll canon.
Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.
Imaro: the winning races article expands on the MM life with gnolls who are separate from and reject the more violent demon worshipping culture outlined in the MM. nothing about the MM changed. It is literally just more lore. And considering it brings them closer to the previous edition's lore, without contradicting any lore...well, not much of a change.
Srsly, how is, "sure that's true of most gnolls, however many gnolls are like this, too" a significant change? OTOH, the 5e change is inarguably a significant change.
It would indeed be an issue if I cared for FR canon at all.Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.
Imaro: the winning races article expands on the MM life with gnolls who are separate from and reject the more violent demon worshipping culture outlined in the MM. nothing about the MM changed. It is literally just more lore. And considering it brings them closer to the previous edition's lore, without contradicting any lore...well, not much of a change.
Srsly, how is, "sure that's true of most gnolls, however many gnolls are like this, too" a significant change? OTOH, the 5e change is inarguably a significant change.
It would indeed be an issue if I cared for FR canon at all.
In Eberron however, I'm sticking with Gnolls that are still predatory, evil and vicious. However they are also the main peacekeepers in Droaam because they are trustworthy to remain neutral.
The Gnolls that bow down to cairns of crushed rocks to honour their ancestors. The Gnolls that threw off the yoke of, and smashed the statues of the demon princes whom their race used to worship.
Actually . . .
That would be an interesting twist on the Eberron Gnolls of the Znir pact: Yeenoghu was an overlord who created the Gnolls just as per Volo's Guide. - In the far past. Since they revolted and Yeenoghu was sealed away, the Gnolls have developed as a race on their own.
So stating a race can't be bribed with or parleyed with... and then making it so they can be is... not a change. Got it.
Hey, I'd be more than 100 XP down if [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] didn't think I'm a comic genius!Jeff Albertson wants a word.
Which edition are you referring to? I can't find that phrase on p 37 of the original MM - but in any event, it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of their tendency towards LE.In the AD&D Monster Manual it also states...
"Efreet view most other creatures either as enemies or servants..."
So yeah... they tried to enslave the Azer... they enslaved some of the Salamanders and they have slaves of other races as well because that's their nature in both AD&D and in 5e. Telling us specifics about who they enslaved is additive since it's been established that they enslave other races since at least 2e...
Which edition are you referring to? I can't find that phrase on p 37 of the original MM - but in any event, it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of their tendency towards LE.
Not all servants are slaves. Not all LE types hold others as slaves.
And the fact that the slaves are salamanders rather than mortals is also significant.
Suppose that someone decided that efreeti enslave beholders - would you really think that that's not a change to efreeti and beholder lore because it's merely "additive"?