Dungeon #143

[Cthulhudrew]

On a serious note, how are rakasta related to those tiger-head dudes in Monster Manual?

They aren't. Rakshasa didn't exist in the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals (BECMI) rules, which is the line that module X1: The Isle of Dread was published for. While some rakshasa mentions sneaked into later products here and there (Champions of Mystara, HWA3: Nightstorm, Mark of Amber), there was never any connection made.

If you wanted to tie them together, it could be that the rakshasa are rakasta who made pacts with demons and became Outsiders, but again, no connection has ever been established.

The other thing to consider is that, although generally depicted as tiger-heads, the Rakshasa can actually have any of a number of animal-head types- elephant, ape, etc. IIRC it states as much in their description, but again, they are largely (and classically, in D&D) portrayed with tiger-heads.

 

[Wik]

Whoa... I just realized... I have a catfolk in my Savage Tide game... she's gonna get to explore the demise of the Rakasta... this is gonna be *COOL*.

 

[Alzrius]

But calling people who have different convictions than you do "reactionaries" certainly won't win you any diplomacy points. :\

Those are my words, not Dungeon's. Though I suppose "religious fundamentalism" works just as well.

Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with having different convictions - the problem is when you try to have other people follow your convictions, regardless of their beliefs. D&D isn't for everyone, so the game shouldn't try to appease those who don't like it; that's the point of the letter's response in the magazine.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Whoa... I just realized... I have a catfolk in my Savage Tide game... she's gonna get to explore the demise of the Rakasta... this is gonna be *COOL*.

Perhaps rakasta are the primitive progenitors of catfolk ... and the mysteries in the adventure will explain the origins of their race. Plus it's not like rakasta are extinct ... just vanished.

 

[diaglo]

Plus it's not like rakasta are extinct ... just vanished.

qft


edit: still waiting for my copy in Jawja

 

[Nightfall]

James,

Thanks for those insights...but I'm still curious about this new half fiend template!

Al shed some light on this for me please?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Received my issue of Dungeon but not Dragon....

 

[ShinHakkaider]

That was me writing the letter of complaint about Dungeon 140's cover. I have no doubt that the Paizo staff replied politely to my letter. They're good guys.
Once I get my issue, I'll probably be able to comment more (should there be any need to do so).

I posted my original letter, plus some additional details, on my blog awhile back: http://soundadvicefortoday.com/2006/11/10/dungeon-no-140.aspx

Let me also add that I'm not in anyway trying to start a war of words in the Dungeon letters column, here or on my blog. Just stating what I felt on that day.

There's one thing I don't quite understand though, if the cover offended you so much, why not just remove the cover instead of defacing the image on the cover. The defacing of the image just seems "reactionary" and odd.

 

[hexgrid]

I got two issues of Dungeon #143.

One was mine, and the other was very slightly stuck to the top of mine. The other guy's mailing label was hidden in the middle, unseen until I pulled the issues apart.

And when I say "very slightly stuck," I do mean "very slightly". Both the mail sorter and the delivery person must have been asleep to not notice that there were two separate pieces of mail here.

I've already sent the misdelivered issue on it's way, but if one of your Dungeons ever fails to arrive, now you know one way this can happen.

 

[Mighty Halfling]

There's one thing I don't quite understand though, if the cover offended you so much, why not just remove the cover instead of defacing the image on the cover. The defacing of the image just seems "reactionary" and odd.

I didn't deface it per say -- I just chopped the devil off of it.
I then needed "art" for my blog entry, and scanned in the "revised" cover. With the advertisement behind it, it looked really really strange, so I grabbed the part I cut off and sliced it into strips. I then placed those on my flatbed scanner and the magazine on top of those.
Scanning that, I got the image you see. I didn't do this gleefully or anything, I was just improvising.

So the short answer is: I needed art for my blog, and I didn't want to use the offending image, so I made do.