Gloomwrought Looks Good!

So how closely do the 4e Keepers resemble the Keepers either from 2e PS, or from the Ecology of the Keeper in Dragon a few years ago (which I did)?

Are the Keepers still Keepers, or is this more a case of Archons versus 4e Archons where the 4e version has little (or no) connection to the previous monster?

I'd always thought the Keepers were stand-ins for the "strangers" from Dark City, but the planescape monstrous compendium presages Dark City by 4 years. There must be some old twilight zone or hitchcock film that both drew inspiration from - they were just so alien. Makes me think they're kind of Far Realmsian.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So how closely do the 4e Keepers resemble the Keepers either from 2e PS, or from the Ecology of the Keeper in Dragon a few years ago (which I did)?

Are the Keepers still Keepers, or is this more a case of Archons versus 4e Archons where the 4e version has little (or no) connection to the previous monster?
Like I said upthread, they now seem to be the dark brethren of the dabus. They go about in Gloomwrought, examining the buildings and stuff, "talking" to each other in clicks (but ignoring any non-Keepers). They seem to have a knack for controlling the golems that abound in the city and recently there have been instances of "rogue" Keepers that attack not only residents, but even other Keepers.
 

Like I said upthread, they now seem to be the dark brethren of the dabus. They go about in Gloomwrought, examining the buildings and stuff, "talking" to each other in clicks (but ignoring any non-Keepers). They seem to have a knack for controlling the golems that abound in the city and recently there have been instances of "rogue" Keepers that attack not only residents, but even other Keepers.

Dang. Pretty much completely different creatures now except for the outward appearance.
 






No jumping down anyone's throat. I can see how you might not like tokens. Fair enough.

It is quite humorous how your use of quotation marks around the word book seems to suggest that a book is only a true book if it has a hard cover. Anything else I guess is merely called a "book" out of convention. Hehehe.

Fair enough saying you don't like paperback books ... but just outright calling into question the very nature of their bookness ... you go too far, sir! :P

Actually, the things I was talking about aren't the Essentials rulebooks, which are fine by me (though it doesn't make sense that they're so much smaller than the non-Essentials rulebooks). I thought my comment about "magazine-style" made it clear I was talking about the other books inside the Essentials boxes. Like the adventures, or the Red Box rule books. The cover paper isn't even as strong as the old BECMI books.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top