D&D 5E Monsters of Many Names - Wandering Monsters (Yugoloth!)

[Orius]

I don't agree. It makes perfect sense for the Tiefling entry to say they're common in Sigil, just as it makes perfect sense for the Minotaur entry to say they're common in Krynn.

Not really. Setting specific stuff can be saved for the settings themselves. There's only so much space in the books, and putting in obscure lore only means less space for more important stuff. And it's worse if the people who want to play Planscape or Dragonlance or any of the other classic settings don't want to move up to a new edition and play with older rules.

I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned upthread, but the Blood War was actually introduced in MC 8 The Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium Appendix, not Planescape, and that's also when names like baatezu, tanar'ri and yugoloth first appeared too.

It's possible that people forgot it because the MC format wasn't exactly well loved and MC 8 was later replaced by the first Planescape MC, which became the offical source for these creatures.

But, honestly, for me, this was the beginning of the end for planar material in AD&D. After this, it was all Planescape all the time and you couldn't swing a dead cat without Planescape lore infesting every bloody book.

3e was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Finally most of the planar stuff was stuffed back into some source books that I was free to ignore.

As I said over in the related thread, I blame this one on TSR's obsession with campaign settings. From 1994 to 1998 you couldn't have generic, core planar references, everything had to be Planescape to pimp the line. But it's generally agreed that this whole approach divided the D&D player base and ended up losing money for TSR. Then WotC bought TSR, and made the somewhat wiser decision that this stuff really should be folded back into core. Unfortunately, the Planescape fans weren't happy that their favorite setting had been discontinued, just as fans of the other settings were similarly diappointed. As this and the other topic show, the division is still showing its effects.

3e's approach wasn't too bad. The early material didn't mention Planescape at all, except for the MotP which of course gave a brief mention of Sigil and some various bits of fluff here and there from the setting. It didn't need to reprint most of the fluff and MotP has most of what a DM needs mechanically to convert a PS campaign up to 3e. For those who don't want PS, the book is presented as a collection of options and ideas, so the PS stuff can be ignored.

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't really matter where it comes from. It arises in response to a change to the existing lore.

So here's an idea: don't dramatically change the existing lore.

It's age old writer's wisdom: write what you know. It's not too much to ask that you understand the topic you are writing about. If you're going to put yugoloths in the game (for whatever reason), put them in honoring the tradition that gave rise to them. Respect the fun that others have had with them. Understand what makes them entertaining.

If you refuse to or if you cannot, don't even bother writing about them. Do something new.

My problem with this is similar to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s: mezzodaemons and nycadaemons go back to the late 70s, and some of us were using them - and their MM2 friends - before Planescape came along, and were still using them in much the same way after Planescape came along without paying any attention to Planescape.

Planesecapse isn't the tradition that gave rise to these creatures, and I don't really see why the gameline should be written giving it any special preference. Either write the core books cosmology-lite (Hussar's favoured option, I think) or write them with the best of the many cosmologies to choose from (which is what 4e did, and which I liked - if D&Dnext put forward a new and compelling cosmological vision, that would make me more likely to buy it!).

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's no different than a Dragonlance fan insisting that minotaurs must be sailors and pirates. We must not change minotaurs. Labyrinth dwelling minotaurs are no good, because they counter lore for a specific setting.

We've seen this in another Wandering Monster column: the minotaur as a sailor/pirate/PC race a la 4e is presumably something the game is going to be supporting. That respects the old lore. It also doesn't invalidate labyrinth minotaurs.

So there isn't a difference.

Why do Planescape fans get to bring up their setting specific information and make claims over the flavour of different creatures, but, no other setting specific fan gets to do the same? God hating yugoloths are only seen in Planescape and in no other setting. Why would you not leave that in the specific setting? Why does the specific setting get to trump the general?

You're forgetting the original context of this bit of the thread: one poster said "Make Yugoloths servants of evil gods!" (something that they have never been), and a fan of the old lore said, "If you do that, you wreck part of the fun of them."

So the solution I'm proposing is: don't make Yugoloths into anything they haven't been before. They don't need a dramatic change, they don't need a revolution. They can be what they have been.

mezzodaemons and nycadaemons go back to the late 70s, and some of us were using them - and their MM2 friends - before Planescape came along, and were still using them in much the same way after Planescape came along without paying any attention to Planescape.

Since they weren't the servants of evil gods in the '70's, either, I don't know why you'd support that change any more.

A planar-lite approach for the core is smart, and as I've mentioned in most of these threads about slaadi and modrons and gith-folk and even shadar-kai, none of these things are really essential for a fun game of D&D. But they are useful -- they make good props. If the game is going to include them, then it doesn't need to revolutionize them, it just needs to respect what has come before.

Which is the point. They shouldn't be made into the servants of evil gods, because they've never been that either, and making them into that invalidates some of the existing lore.

So that's why the point comes up: someone proposed a change, and there is a reason why that change wouldn't work.

And apparently saying "Just leave it alone" is a horrible example of Planescape fans kicking Hussar's game in the junk.

So my point is, stop trying to fix what isn't broken. Mention them as a third kind of fiend that is a kind of summoned evil entity and that they work with demons and devils when it suits them. That doesn't invalidate old lore, so they can stay as that.

How hard is it to frickin' leave well enough alone? If you want an awesome race of god-serving evil critters, make one. Don't appropriate something else.

 

[Hussar]

But, Yugoloths serving gods only contradicts elements of a single specific setting. It does not contradict any other setting, nor does it contradict core. Sure, it never specifically stated that yugoloths could serve gods, but, then again, it never said anything about it at all.

Adding in "serves a god of evil" makes them more interesting to some people. It makes them more usable. It does not contradict any established facts about the monster outside of a specific setting.

Why does that specific setting get to dictate the lore of given monsters when no other setting does?

 

[steeldragons]

So my point is, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

I absolutely agree.

Mention them as a third kind of fiend that is a kind of summoned evil entity and that they work with demons and devils when it suits them. That doesn't invalidate old lore, so they can stay as that.

Sounds exactly fine as a description of them to me. Nothing more need be said about them in the MM.

How hard is it to frickin' leave well enough alone?

I've said this so many times about so many elements in 5e I've lost count. Apparently, if you ask the folks at WotC (trying to save their jobs, I suppose), "very hard" for them.

If you want an awesome race of god-serving evil critters, make one. Don't appropriate something else.

Precisely so. And holds true contrariwise, "If you want an awesome race of god-hating evil critters that pre-date the gods and demons, act as mercenaries in some 'Blood War', go play Planescape. Don't appropriate something else [like the game core]."

Seems imminently sensible and fair.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, Yugoloths serving gods only contradicts elements of a single specific setting. It does not contradict any other setting, nor does it contradict core. Sure, it never specifically stated that yugoloths could serve gods, but, then again, it never said anything about it at all.

Now you're going afield of the original versions, though. If you're looking for things that don't contradict core or other settings, you don't need to have yugoloths serving gods. You can have them HATING gods, which contradicts nothing ever written about them, and is also a pretty interesting hook by itself.

Adding in "serves a god of evil" makes them more interesting to some people. It makes them more usable. It does not contradict any established facts about the monster outside of a specific setting.

Same thing with hating gods, only now you don't annoy part of the fan base just because you can't be bothered to honor what's already interesting about the creatures and all the work that's gone in before.

Why does that specific setting get to dictate the lore of given monsters when no other setting does?

What gets to dictate the lore is what has already been the lore. That doesn't include "servants of the evil gods." So making them into that would screw with someone's game.

So keep them what they have been. Summoned mercenaries with evil plots that hate the world including the gods. Or just summoned mercenaries (with the rest left off, added by PS fans and not by others).

Yugoloths and even gehreleths don't need to be made more interesting. They don't need to be "fixed." They are scads of interesting as they are. They need to represent what they already are, what is interesting about how they already are used, or at least left without contradiction to that. What's the point of screwing with someone's fun just because you can't be bothered to create new IP for the niche you want filled? You don't need to steal yugoloths to make them servants of the evil gods, you can get away just fine with 4e's "evil angels" or any number of demons and devils (who HAVE occasionally been servants of the gods). Making yugoloths into that is just a big "screw you" to those that like what they already are, and there's nothin' quite like starting an edition themed around reunification with a giant middle finger up for no apparent reason.

I mean it sounds like you're saying "I want them to be more than their original version, but I don't want them to be like the Planescape version, because SCREW PLANESCAPE." Which is silly. Keep them to the original, okay. Want them more elaborate? Someone's already done that work. Want them to be something totally different? Just make a new critter.

 

[Weather Report]

In core, in any edition, Yugoloths don't hate gods. There is nothing about that in any core book. So, why are we forced to maintain lore from a specific setting?

Who is clamouring/forcing for Yugoloths hating gods in core (I have not seen it)?

 

[Hussar]

Same thing with hating gods, only now you don't annoy part of the fan base just because you can't be bothered to honor what's already interesting about the creatures and all the work that's gone in before.

Well, you've annoyed the part of the fan base that would like to have Yugoloths be able to serve gods. And, since that contradicts nothing outside of a single, specific setting, what's the problem?

For those using that setting, they get to make the changes. Too bad. Same as if I want to use Minotaurs in Dragonlance or Halflings in Dark Sun. Dark Sun halflings are completely different from core halflings. Does that mean that we have to change core halflings to suit Dark Sun fans?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, you've annoyed the part of the fan base that would like to have Yugoloths be able to serve gods.

That group hasn't ever been supported by yugoloths, though. That's never been part of D&D. "Yugoloths as servants of evil gods" isn't something that anyone writing the books ever thought necessary. They've never been that. It's like expecting goblins to be noble knights of faerie or something -- there's no reason to expect that something becomes what it never has been.

And, since that contradicts nothing outside of a single, specific setting, what's the problem?

There's something out there that HAS been used before, that contradicts ABSOLUTELY nothing written about the critter. Why is that not even better?

For those using that setting, they get to make the changes. Too bad. Same as if I want to use Minotaurs in Dragonlance or Halflings in Dark Sun. Dark Sun halflings are completely different from core halflings. Does that mean that we have to change core halflings to suit Dark Sun fans?

Like I pointed out up above: the official lore is providing room for those without having to make dramatic changes. The Wandering Monster article on Minotaurs has shown this readily: they don't want 4e/Dragonlance minotaurs to violate "what minotaurs are," so PC-minotaurs are a consideration from Day 1. There's every reason to expect that Dark Sun halflings will be given a similar treatment (and slapping a kender in there, too, likely).

The difference here is that the existence of Dark Sun halflings doesn't invalidate other halflings. You could run a campaign where hobbits, skinny halflings, dark sun halflings, and kender all exist. You could run a game where the Daedalus-minotaur existed alongside minotaurs as Baphomet worshipers and minotaurs as a PC race of pirates. You can even run a game where gith are backwater reptilian mutants and space-faring pirates and free agents in the chaos of a churning reality, all at the same time. You can't run a game where Yugoloths are servants of the evil gods and also adversaries of all gods. That kills the existing fun, and all to make room for brand new fiction that isn't necessary anyway.

So no, no one else has to make changes, because they are actively considering the historical uses of the creature in how they develop the creature for the edition that is supposed to embrace all other editions.

We're all gonna hafta play a D&D game where someone, somewhere, is going to play at a table entirely consisting of Drizzit-clone drow, tinker gnomes, kender, and deck apes. If you don't like those things, all you have to do is not use them. You don't get to redefine gnomes so as to exclude tinkers from the game just because you think the idea is dumb, though you're welcome to forbid them from your own table. You don't get to redefine yugoloths just because you don't like Planescape, though you're welcome to not use them. By all means, keep them in their initial incarnation as they were in their initial incarnation, there's nothing contradictory there and it's as relevant as most non-planar games will need. But this reinventing the wheel noise is baffling. The yugoloths exist, they're fine, people love them, why is there this impossible desire to take something and screw it up? You gain nothing by it.

If you want the servants of evil gods, you have things other than yugoloths. If you want yugoloths, they're not the servants of evil gods. This isn't hard to understand.

 

[Hussar]

If you want the servants of evil gods, you have things other than yugoloths. If you want yugoloths, they're not the servants of evil gods. This isn't hard to understand.

But, they're only not servants of evil gods in one setting. In any other setting, there is nothing, not one single bit of lore that prevents it.

So, adding in a line, "Yugoloths are mercenaries that will hire out to anyone from demons and devils to evil wizards and dark lords to even evil gods", isn't hurting anyone. All you have to do is ignore that final line. And I get what I want.

I'm failing to see the problem here. Why does Planescape lore get to take precedence?

If yugoloths had always been defined as hating gods, then fair enough. I can totally see the argument about the 4e changes to dryads, for example. It is directly countering established core lore about dryads. But, adding in "can serve evil gods" does not counter anything in core lore.

I would say that "Hates gods" isn't part of yugoloths at all. It never has been, outside of Planescape. It's no different than sea-faring minotaurs. Adding in, "Can serve evil gods" is no different than, "Can serve Baphomet" into 5e minotaurs, despite the fact that that is a pure 4eism.

But, I'm getting sidetracked. My point isn't about the relative merits of the changes. It might be a bad idea to let yugoloth serve gods. I dunno. My point is that the idea is automatically rejected, not on its merits, but because it's not PS compatible. I could not care less if something is Planescape compatible in core, the same way I could not care less that core Drow are incompatible for Eberron.