MM4's Bluespawn Godslayer

[D.Shaffer]

You want people to quake in fear at its approach. You want mothers to tell their children to behave or the Godslayer will get them.

Considering that the flavor text mentions that part of its 'function' is also to oppose ASPECTS of the Gods, you could even argue the given name fits. Of course, if you wanted to quibble I guess they should have called it the 'Aspect of the Gods, Dragon-kin, and generic Outsider' Slayer, but Godslayer makes for a nicer sounding summary.

 

[Mercule]

Well, based on the name and potential for coolness, I figured the Godslayer had the best chance of changing my mind on the Spawn. Nope -- still dumb.

Actually, there are quite a few outsider-type and dragon-type PC races these days (tiefling, aasimar, dragonborn, etc.)

You say that like it's a good thing.

It's one of the worst things about D&D, of late. If Races of the Dragon was anything other than a horrible sales disappointment, then I really need to start looking for a new game. Because I'm clearly not part of the target audience. I can't even begin to understand the mentality that says, "Hey, let's add more dragon-blooded options to the game."

The game is called "Dungeons and Dragons", but that's because those elements are included and iconic, not because they are all-consuming.

 

[jgbrowning]

And seriously folks, if you don't like the name, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. It's your game, not Wizard's.

Of course we all can call whatever we want whatever we want. That doesn't change "Godslayer" into an appropriately chosen name, nor does it change WotC into not making a poor design decision.

There are also other things conceptually wrong with it as well. They're supposed to have an unswerving loyalty to Tiamat, but they're only usually LE? They're born from a dragon egg, yet mysteriously have their signature weapons and shield which I suppose come out of the egg as well?

They should be named "Bluespawn Slayer" (to continue the stalker, raider, etc. naming convention as indicated in the spawn of tiamat section), they should always be LE and they shouldn't have manufactured weapons. This earns the creature a resounding "meh" from me.

joe b.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

And seriously folks, if you don't like the name, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. It's your game, not Wizard's. They could put out a monster called the Horned Booty Snooker and as long as the stats look cool and you like it, you can call it the DeathEating Goblin Snake and no one will ever make you stop. In my campaign Dire Boars are called Giant Razorbacks. Kobolds are "those little lizard things." I'm guessing most commoners don't know what an Arcaniss is, but it knows enough to be afraid of it. That's what matters with monsters: the fear.

You're not saying anything I haven't said myself hundreds of times over the years here. Names are easily changed. But names can also be evocative and help define the image of a monster in a reader's mind. My example, the witchknife, uses actual words that conjure an image, a very definite one, that jibes not at all with the actual monster. Sure, i could rename the critter and use the name for something else. But designers could also try to name critters in such a way that the names themselves evoke something in those who hear the name.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Of course we all can call whatever we want whatever we want. That doesn't change "Godslayer" into an appropriately chosen name, nor does it change WotC into not making a poor design decision.

It's made to help take out divine aspects of the gods as well. Sure, it has other functions too, but that IS part of its core 'design' so the name fits.

There are also other things conceptually wrong with it as well. They're supposed to have an unswerving loyalty to Tiamat, but they're only usually LE?

The flavor text notes they're usually LE, with a few exceptions being NE. So, not always LE, but fairly consistantly Evil. As I'm not a fan of the 'Always' alignment, unless they're outsiders, I dont really have a problem with that.

They're born from a dragon egg, yet mysteriously have their signature weapons and shield which I suppose come out of the egg as well?*snip* ...and they shouldn't have manufactured weapons.

Do you complain about other creatures in the previous MM's who incorporate magic weapons in their stat block too? This is hardly the first time that's shown up. All those Orcs and Lizardmen entries with manufactured weapons are also wrong? Because it's not like they're born wielding the things either. Nothing's forcing you to use the suggested weapon they tend to favor. It's just a handy shortcut.

 

[JustaPlayer]

Why on earth did they call it Godslayer? It doesn't slay gods. That's a cardinal rule when naming monsters: use words that fit.

They should have just thought of something else that was cool and appropriate.

joe b.

Maybe Demon Lord slayer.

 

[Cam Banks]

Of course we all can call whatever we want whatever we want. That doesn't change "Godslayer" into an appropriately chosen name, nor does it change WotC into not making a poor design decision.

Exactly. If this were all that mattered, then WOTC could call them all "Large Blue Tank" and add, "Call this whatever you like, because after all, that's your call."

I really want to know who named the arcaniss. It's driving me nuts.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[jgbrowning]

It's made to help take out divine aspects of the gods as well. Sure, it has other functions too, but that IS part of its core 'design' so the name fits.

Aspects aren't gods. Even Bluespawn Aspectslayer would be better. But since they slay quite a bit more, and are designed to do so, I thought just Bluespawn Slayer a better name.

The flavor text notes they're usually LE, with a few exceptions being NE. So, not always LE, but fairly consistantly Evil. As I'm not a fan of the 'Always' alignment, unless they're outsiders, I dont really have a problem with that.

Unswerving loyalty isn't typical of the Neutral Evil alignment.

Do you complain about other creatures in the previous MM's who incorporate magic weapons in their stat block too? This is hardly the first time that's shown up. All those Orcs and Lizardmen entries with manufactured weapons are also wrong? Because it's not like they're born wielding the things either. Nothing's forcing you to use the suggested weapon they tend to favor. It's just a handy shortcut.

Orcs and lizardmen tend to make weapons. I don't remember ever seeing forge in a dragon's lair along with a spellcaster available to create such specific items.

Again, yes, nothing's forcing me to use the creature as written. I would just like the creature to be written better. Apparantly, desiring better design is a wish worthy of posts effectively saying, "stop complaining and fix it yourself."

joe b.

 

[Klaus]

Why on earth did they call it Godslayer? It doesn't slay gods. That's a cardinal rule when naming monsters: use words that fit.

They should have just thought of something else that was cool and appropriate.

joe b.

Reminds me of the woes of the Brazilian edition of DnD. The Duelist (PrClass) is translated as "Duelista" (which is, in fact, the correct word). Then Complete Warrior is released and the Swashbuckler is translated as -- you guessed it! -- "Duelista"! So if you play a Swashbuckler/Duelist, you're playing a "Duelista/Duelista"...

>sigh<

 

[Einan]

You're not saying anything I haven't said myself hundreds of times over the years here. Names are easily changed. But names can also be evocative and help define the image of a monster in a reader's mind. My example, the witchknife, uses actual words that conjure an image, a very definite one, that jibes not at all with the actual monster. Sure, i could rename the critter and use the name for something else. But designers could also try to name critters in such a way that the names themselves evoke something in those who hear the name.

I agree, names can be evocative. However, names need not be evocative to every single reader. I could read the entry for the Witchknife and find it evocative, and you may not. You can't please all the gamers all the time. And sometimes deadlines mean you can't please most of the gamers at all. So you slap a name onto the beast and ship it out and take a lot of flak becuase it has a "stupid" name. But names are easily changed, as I said, and I'd rather have a monster I can use with decent stats and description and change the name than not have the creature at all because the writer couldn't find a name evocative enough.

As for the designers, they're busy people. If they hit 90% of the time, and miss with 10%, I can forgive them. As long as I think that they're doing a good job most of the time, I'll forgive the parts that aren't as good. As long as they keep making Draconomicons (which I love) then I'll forgive them for making Forgotten Realms products (which I do not love.)

However, if the name of this beasty gets you so upset that you decide to pass on the book, that's fine too. Personal opinion is personal. For example, I agree with you. Witchknife is a silly name. But then again, so is kobold. Heck, you can't even get people to agree how to pronounce it. But kobold's been around a while and gained a mystique. If witchknife sticks around, it might gain a mystique too. And thus become evocative.

Einan