D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Imaro]

about gnolls. That is a huge change. It is a change that takes them from being "savage" antagonists that can be fought or bargained with, or PLAYED, and making them only capable of being one thing, because they literally can't NOT rampage. It's a complete contradiction of past lore, and wildly changes the niche they fill in the world.

If gnolls were just hyena-orcs before, they aren't anymore. They can't be anymore. 4e added to them by giving them more roles they can fill, and then 5e completely changed their nature and origin and restricted them to exactly one role that they can ever fill (without homebrew, obviously).

Yeah looking at the AD&D 2e lore...it seems gnolls weren't originally conceived of by the designers as a race you bargain with or play (except maybe in an evil campaign or one where cannibalism is acceptable) without homebrew. They are literally evil savage ravager cannibals who kill and eat any other race, favoring intelligent ones, when it suits them... This is what I mean when I say I get the feeling alot of people aren't actually familiar with the lore they claim has been changed (Unless they are referring to it being changed to be more in line with the earlier lore??) .

"Gnolls will work together with orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, and trolls. If encountered as a group,there must be a relative equality of strength. Otherwise the gnolls will kill and eat their partners (hungercomes before friendship or fear) or be killed and eaten by them. They dislike goblins, kobolds, giants,humans, demi-humans and any type of manual labor."

"Gnolls eat anything warm blooded, favoring intelligent creatures over animals because theyscream better. They will completely hunt out an area before moving on. It may take several years for thegame to return. When allowed to die of old age, the typical gnoll lives to be about 35 years old."

EDIT: In fact I'm honestly a little confused on exactly which gnolls you are talking about, it can't be 4e gnolls because their lore states they can't be bargained or reasoned with...

4e MM 1 pg. 133

"Gnolls don't bargain or parley, and they can't be bribed or reasoned with..."

The only edition where the lore supports playable gnolls is 3.x, making it the outlier.

 

[Imaro]

It also changes Efreeti - in the AD&D MM (p 37) we are told that "Efreet are infamous for their dislike of servitude, their desire for revenge, their cruel nature, and their ability to mislead." There is no reference to their enslavement of Salamanders, which I think would be noteworthy.

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...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

They aren't, actually. They live in the feywild and are what elves and "mortal" Eladrin were born from.

All they did was say that high elves are just mortal, less magical, Eladrin, who are commonly called various things like "high elf", while their Feywild dwelling ancestors and cousins are more exclusively called Eladrin.

At worst, it's the same kind of borderline retcon "clarification" that DnD does some of all the time.

Notice I said Original Eladrin... so no they aren't actually.

Original Eladrin didn't live in the Feywild...
Original Eladrin were not the progenitors of Elves
Original Eladrin were there own race with subraces...the greater eladrin: the tulani, the firre, and the ghaele and thelesser eladrin: the bralani, the coure, the noviere, and the shiere. (some of which were playable)
Original Eladrin were celestials, divine inherently good beings from the outer planes, (more akin to wild angels as opposed to immoral fey)
Original Eladrin were not Fey which just means a creature (with any alignment) that is native to the Feywild in 4e
Original Eladrin had the power to veil themselves when visiting the Prime plane
Original Eladrin are wild and carefree defenders of goodness and freedom.
Original Eladrin believe mortals should be free to choose their own destinies without fiendish interference and thus combat fiends wherever they are found.
Original Eladrin are susceptible to cold wrought iron
Original Eladrin had totally different magical abilities

There are also differences between the subraces of the Original Eladrin and the Eladrin of 4e but I'm not going to go into all of that.

Now IMO these races serve two different purposes. 4e Eladrin are the amoral faerie we've seen in numerous fairytales, roleplaying games, and numerous literature and media. IMO, kind of trite and well ultimately the poster child for euro-centric fey.

On the other hand the Original Eladrin were this strange and, IMO, original mixture of fae and angel who actually lived up to the moniker of the "good folk" by well being inherently good and trying to help mortals through individual acts of kindness and heroism.. more of a muse to inspire those of good heart, especially since they have natures focused around beauty, and creativity. They had an actual purpose (to oppose the fiends) but were still susceptible to their inherently chaotic nature and thus sometimes fallible in their purpose for doing good and confusing/frightening in their penchant for chaos and chaotic methods. Sort of an, again IMO, clever twist on the common fae legends where they are actually good but their inherent struggle with their chaotic nature could sometimes cause tension with that.

Now what I'm starting to suspect is that most of those claiming that the 4e Eladrin are the same don't really know much about the lore of the Original Eladrin. IMO, it would have been an interesting juxtaposition to have both of these races in 4e perhaps with the 4e Eldar as a renegade offshoot who have grown callous or no longer concern themselves with good... but just snatching the name and turning them into "High Elves" again I feel it was a lazy and sloppy way to grant a new name and create a new identity for high elves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah looking at the AD&D 2e lore...it seems gnolls weren't originally conceived of by the designers as a race you bargain with or play (except maybe in an evil campaign or one where cannibalism is acceptable) without homebrew. They are literally evil savage ravager cannibals who kill and eat any other race, favoring intelligent ones, when it suits them... This is what I mean when I say I get the feeling alot of people aren't actually familiar with the lore they claim has been changed (Unless they are referring to it being changed to be more in line with the earlier lore??) .

"Gnolls will work together with orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, and trolls. If encountered as a group,there must be a relative equality of strength. Otherwise the gnolls will kill and eat their partners (hungercomes before friendship or fear) or be killed and eaten by them. They dislike goblins, kobolds, giants,humans, demi-humans and any type of manual labor."

"Gnolls eat anything warm blooded, favoring intelligent creatures over animals because theyscream better. They will completely hunt out an area before moving on. It may take several years for thegame to return. When allowed to die of old age, the typical gnoll lives to be about 35 years old."

EDIT: In fact I'm honestly a little confused on exactly which gnolls you are talking about, it can't be 4e gnolls because their lore states they can't be bargained or reasoned with...

4e MM 1 pg. 133

"Gnolls don't bargain or parley, and they can't be bribed or reasoned with..."

The only edition where the lore supports playable gnolls is 3.x, making it the outlier.

How is 2e MM lore even relevant to any point I made?

And, look, this is why you keep getting "snark and dismissal" from people. You respond to a post completely lacking in either with snark and condescension. Maybe stop doing that.

As for 4e, Winning Races. It's a whole "ecology of gnolls" type article, including playable stats and expanded lore. Pretty easy to find at least reference to via google, and I'm pretty sure the issue of dragon is available for 5$ on dmsguild.


Eladrin: more "ppl who disagree with me just don't know what they're talking about" condescension? Really?

Anyway, the cosmology changed. So yeah, Eladrin live in the feywild, and also Arborea! The difference between a celestial and a powerful, immortal Fey being of the Feywild or Arborea is...practically nonexistent. It's literally a difference of categorization and home town.

Those old Eladrin still exist in 4e! 4e did have both. How many ppl need to tell you this?

 

[Manbearcat]

I did the same thing! Do you know what I came up with?

Man, that Dr. Strange was awesome sauce! I rate it 9/10 Katanas!

Major props to the Cumberbatch. Also? While self-reflecting, we should totally have a Cumberbatch monster!

I took up my vorpal katana and SNICKER SNACK lopped off the head of the FRUMIOUS CUMBERBATCH!

Man, I love me some self-evaluation.

8.25/10 katanas (katanas can be quartered, but only voluntarily) IMO

I'd pay $4.74 to see Cumberbatch vs Jabberwocky.

 

[Imaro]

How is 2e MM lore even relevant to any point I made?

You claimed gnolls were changed by 5e... from what? What lore were they changed from? I went as early back as I have access to right now and they don't seem to have changed in 5e... so I'm asking what lore did 5e change?

And, look, this is why you keep getting "snark and dismissal" from people. You respond to a post completely lacking in either with snark and condescension. Maybe stop doing that.

Serious question... what snark? I haven't said anything snide in the above post whatsoever... if so please point it out and I'll be happy to apologize.

As for 4e, Winning Races. It's a whole "ecology of gnolls" type article, including playable stats and expanded lore. Pretty easy to find at least reference to via google, and I'm pretty sure the issue of dragon is available for 5$ on dmsguild.

I'm going by the lore in the Monster Manual, are you saying this lore is incorrect?... Now if they deviated from Winning Races sorry but that's not my fault but what was published in the MM as the lore a character gets if they make a certain DC roll is that they do not parley and they do not bargain which is the same as 5e.... and no I'm not paying for a Dragon article to find where they either changed lore or retconned it. I'm going by the books needed to play the game. If all this lore is conflicting which one is correct in 4e?

EDIT: Also if this is true it gives even more credence to @I'm A Banana 's argument about inaccessibility due to canon changing. It's an example of it being done in a single edition and causing us to talk past each other.

Eladrin: more "ppl who disagree with me just don't know what they're talking about" condescension? Really?

Anyway, the cosmology changed. So yeah, Eladrin live in the feywild, and also Arborea! The difference between a celestial and a powerful, immortal Fey being of the Feywild or Arborea is...practically nonexistent. It's literally a difference of categorization and home town.

Those old Eladrin still exist in 4e! 4e did have both. How many ppl need to tell you this?

I listed way more differences than... they live somewhere else... ​Are you going to address those?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Only thing I'm even going to address is the gnolls in 4e part. There is no contradiction in 4e. They expanded the race fluff, and updated the playable race stats. That's it. 5e took the nuanced, multidimensional outlook on gnolls and replaced it with a "race" of bipedal hyena demons that literally aren't capable of choosing not to rampage. I'm not sure they even actually breed, as such. Even as a monster race, that is a bigger change than most of the other changes to monster races people have complained about. The fact that they spent at least the last two editions (and I'm pretty sure 2e started it, but I don't remember what suppliment presented a more multidimensional gnoll) as a natural race with some demonic influence that is capable of genuine thought and decision making, etc, makes the 5e change a huge difference. Unlike Eladrin.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Only thing I'm even going to address is the gnolls in 4e part. There is no contradiction in 4e. They expanded the race fluff, and updated the playable race stats. That's it. 5e took the nuanced, multidimensional outlook on gnolls and replaced it with a "race" of bipedal hyena demons that literally aren't capable of choosing not to rampage. I'm not sure they even actually breed, as such. Even as a monster race, that is a bigger change than most of the other changes to monster races people have complained about. The fact that they spent at least the last two editions (and I'm pretty sure 2e started it, but I don't remember what suppliment presented a more multidimensional gnoll) as a natural race with some demonic influence that is capable of genuine thought and decision making, etc, makes the 5e change a huge difference. Unlike Eladrin.

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.