Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4192698" data-attributes="member: 2067">Yes, but they still create at least as big a barrier to acceptance, which means that on the issue of "leveling the playing field," it's at least a wash.Creating new content is really a different conversation.Okay, lets go with D&D IP, then. Beholders, illithids, githyanki, githzerai, displacer beasts...I still don't see where there is this "barrier to acceptance" you mentioned.And if the litmus test is "does it exist outside of D&D, too?" I think you'll find that the new stuff doesn't always meet that litmus test, either. Specifically because it's new created content.And in either case, its preexistence doesn't create much of a barrier to acceptance. The flagship example of how 25 years of legacy creates this barrier is in the new direction Forgotten Realms is taking, but that's rather specifically about the history and events of a world, and not a broad lesson to apply rigidly throughout the game at every level. It'd be pretty pointless to say that all monsters must either be brand new or existing and derived solely from the broader modern fantasy milieu.Because it certainly doesn't create any real barriers to acceptance, nor does it prevent new stuff also existing.Evil scheming tigers and fearful symmetry are as old as William Blake, mang. General evil nature spirits, remnant wilderness demons, or intruders from the world of fey can go by a lot of names, so there's no real "missed" opportunity. So could backwards-handed predatory cat illusionists, I guess, but since the name's already linked through Eberron, and this team obviously has some issues with naming things, I really understand why they stuck with "rakshasas." I don't really think you need to take the word that seriously. It's just a game, and the contingent of Ramayana purists that this could be a "barrier to acceptance" for is, I'd wager, tremendously scarce. But it probably helps maintain continuity with one of their flagship settings, where rakshasas already exist as big cat people with backwards hands, and thus ensures a clarity when the MM and Eberron talk about the same thing.I'm guessing that was kind of an important goal for them.More important than adhering to "hongs idea of what a rakshasas should be," probably, anyway. Eberron is still current, at least for WotC, and reverse-handed tiger-people called "rakshasas" play a pretty significant role in the setting. So, it does.It's just as sensible regardless of how long the D&Disms have been in force.Secondly, given that the genre is "fantasy," I think people are much more accepting of new weirdness than you're giving them credit for. 50% of fantasy is "Take this mythic word and apply it for your own purposes." (The other 50% is probably "Mimic Tolkien.") I mean, the first  few hits when you google "Bahamut" are about the dragon-king/dragon-deity, rather than the fish that supports the world (you get an early wikipedia reference for that, though). Fantasy has often championed the illogical mish-mash of cool old words and new concepts. I don't think many people will have much trouble grokking tiger-rakshasas (especially with Eberron to help them) or cerulean aardvark hardcore, or whatever, regardless of how long either has been around.</blockquote>

Verification