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

[zoroaster100]

I like demondand better than Ghereleth. I can prefer daemon to yugoloth but it is pretty close to demon, so I'm fine with that being changed. Demodands played a major role in the first Dungeon Adventure Path and so they hold a special place in the game for me. I also agree with Kamikaze Midget that Yugoloths and Demodands bring something to the table by virtue of them having different motivations/stories than devils or demons. Plus they have by now built up enough of a presence in the game's history that I think they should stay as separate races from demons and devils.

 

[Shemeska]

Mind you, the 'loths are among my favorite things in D&D. I like them. A LOT. I contributed to their lore with pieces in 3e, 4e, and their Pathfinder analogs, and for the first two of those I'd really like to see some of that move forward in 5e.

This article isn't bad, but it's very shallow and there are rather a number of things inexplicably left out:

What of the unique yugoloths other than Anthraxis, the so-called altraloths? Ed Bonny's work in 'Pox of the Planes' was very cool, and it's a shame to see it ignored or overlooked.

No mention of the elaborate 'loth backstory and history as heavily developed in 2e and continued in 3e? The 'loths aren't just mercenaries, they're the oldest of the standard fiends. No mention of the General of Gehenna as the first ultroloth, and the Heart of Darkness creation myth?

Colin McComb had some absolutely genius material on the 'loths, their motivations, origins, and ecology in 2e's Faces of Evil. I'm really not seeing much of that material appear here. If it's not being considered, it's unique enough to D&D, and well enough done that it's going to be a loss to the game as a whole if you don't.

No mention of the yugoloths' creators, the baernaloths? Daru Ib Shamiq? Harishek ap Thulkesh the Blind Clockmaker? The Demented?

No mention of the 'loths (and their creators') hands in creating the obyriths and the first denizens of baator prior to the arrival of Asmodeus and the first baatezu?

No mention of the intertwined creation mythology of the yugoloths and gehreleths? Each claiming to have been the first creations of the baernaloths collectively or the exiled baernaloth Apomps the Triple Aspected respectively? The utter mutual hatred between the two of them and their warring for control of Carceri? The gehreleths acting as living extensions of their creator -eyes, ears, hands, mouths-, mediated by the black triangles they were around their necks?

That stuff was amazing, and it was there for two editions of the game. You really truly need to take a look back at it if you intend to really do justice for the 'loths. You could always get someone who knows the background lore really obsessively well to freelance a bit.

And finally, Anthraxus was renamed Phraxus in late 3e FR and 4e because of the anthrax scare in the nws? Really? Seriously? That's hands down one of the lamest alterations of D&D lore ever. Words cannot describe how absolutely appalling that is. Please tell me that was a legal decision rather than a design team thing.

 

[billd91]

It may be a personal idiosyncrasy, but I cannot stand the names they made up in 2E to avoid calling anything "demon" or "devil." Tanar'ri? Yick. Baatezu? Yick squared. Yugoloth? Yick with a side order of bah. "Yugoloth" makes me think of an extraplanar dessert made of fermented stench kow milk.

I thought knuckling under to the influence of disapproving moms was a mistake. But, once the act was perpetrated, I thought TSR actually handled it reasonably well. The renames as Tanar'ri, Yugoloth, and Baatezu were about as good as we could have expected to get, so I never had much trouble with the names.

 

[Weather Report]

Very, very pleased, aside from the Gehreleth history, they are creations of Apomps, an ancient Yugoloth (Baernaloth), before even Demons and Devils were around, Apomps was banished to Carceri along with his creations (the Gehreleths) by the other Yugoloths/Baernaloths.

And Mezzoloths and Nycaloths have 2-arms, an artist's mistake shouldn't inherently change the creatures.

And bring back Anthraxus and his Staff of the Lower Planes.

 

[Shemeska]

It may be a personal idiosyncrasy, but I cannot stand the names they made up in 2E to avoid calling anything "demon" or "devil." Tanar'ri? Yick. Baatezu? Yick squared. Yugoloth? Yick with a side order of bah. "Yugoloth" makes me think of an extraplanar dessert made of fermented stench kow milk.

The reasons behind having to rename D&D's fiends were pretty lame, what with the 80's hysteria about Satanism in the media. But honestly, after that the 2e material on the fiends was incredibly inspired, exceedingly dark, and with slender exception we haven't had as in-depth of an exploration of what makes them tick and the horrors they're responsible for since then. We ended up with a really awesome silver lining to something that could have been terrible IMO.

Also, the stench kow is the worst name and monster concept in the history of D&D. I deserves to never appear in print again for all time, and I don't think it has since its first and only appearance.

Unfortunately, I already see a ton of confusion at the game table between "demon" and "devil," so throwing "daemon" into the mix would be less than helpful. Given their role, I'd be inclined to get rid of the blanket "yugoloth" category and make them a grab bag of independent fiends, of no common origin and beholden to neither Chaos nor Law. Failing that, just dump them into the demon bucket. I do kinda like "demodand," and it's reasonably distinctive, so that name can stay.

Just using 1e sources, I can see where players might get confused between demons, devils, daemons, and demodands. But honestly after 2e they had such a massive elaboration and differentiation between them, including the name tweaking, that really shouldn't be a problem. There's two decades of really good development on them, minus a bit of unfortunate backsliding on the differences in 4e.

 

[gyor]

The Demodand of Pathfinder as servants worshippers of the Evil branch of the Titans was a major improvement over the Demodands of D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

The reasons behind having to rename D&D's fiends were pretty lame, what with the 80's hysteria about Satanism in the media. But honestly, after that the 2e material on the fiends was incredibly inspired, exceedingly dark, and with slender exception we haven't had as in-depth of an exploration of what makes them tick and the horrors they're responsible for since then. We ended up with a really awesome silver lining to something that could have been terrible IMO.

Much of the material was quite good, I just wish it had better names attached to it. It's hard for me to take seriously anything that calls itself a yugoloth.

Also, the stench kow is the worst name and monster concept in the history of D&D. I deserves to never appear in print again for all time, and I don't think it has since its first and only appearance.

I dunno, there are some pretty wretched monster concepts in D&D. I mean, this is the game that gave us pistol-packing anthropomorphic hippopotami... IN SPACE. But the stench kow is pretty darn bad.

Just using 1e sources, I can see where players might get confused between demons, devils, daemons, and demodands. But honestly after 2e they had such a massive elaboration and differentiation between them, including the name tweaking, that really shouldn't be a problem. There's two decades of really good development on them, minus a bit of unfortunate backsliding on the differences in 4e.

We don't all run Planescape, and most players aren't up on the D&D background material; they only learn what the DM puts in front of them, and that only with repeated and forceful application. I recently co-ran a campaign that had demons versus devils as one of the driving elements of the plot, and it took quite a while for the players to get clear on the difference between the two. I shudder to think what it would have been like trying to educate them on demons and daemons. (And if we'd called them "baatezu" and "tanar'ri," they would have been "bay-whatever" and "trainaries" and "Which one is this, again?" and "Why didn't you just call them demons or something?")

 

[TwoSix]

We don't all run Planescape, and most players aren't up on the D&D background material; they only learn what the DM puts in front of them, and that only with repeated and forceful application. I recently co-ran a campaign that had demons versus devils as one of the driving elements of the plot, and it took quite a while for the players to get clear on the difference between the two. I shudder to think what it would have been like trying to educate them on demons and daemons. (And if I'd called them "baatezu" and "tanar'ri," they would have been "bay-whatever" and "trainaries" and "Which one is this, again?" and "Why didn't you just call them demons or something?")

This. I wish they'd take more time and give each monster type not just a thematic hook, but a visual hook as well. "Well, these guys are an orderly hierarchy and want to crush you under their booted heel" and "These guys are a rampaging horde that just want to grind your bones and drink your soul" sounds different in print, but doesn't always seem so different when you fight them. I'd rather them stick to a "winged humanoid with some aberrant features" for devils and "bestial ravagers" for demons.

 

[GX.Sigma]

We don't all run Planescape, and most players aren't up on the D&D background material; they only learn what the DM puts in front of them, and that only with repeated and forceful application. I recently co-ran a campaign that had demons versus devils as one of the driving elements of the plot, and it took quite a while for the players to get clear on the difference between the two. I shudder to think what it would have been like trying to educate them on demons and daemons. (And if we'd called them "baatezu" and "tanar'ri," they would have been "bay-whatever" and "trainaries" and "Which one is this, again?" and "Why didn't you just call them demons or something?")

You can call them all demons in your campaign, but I'd rather not throw away the established continuity for the people who do run Planescape (or Greyhawk, or the Realms, or any other setting that uses the AD&D cosmology).

 

[SkidAce]

You mean the yugoloths weren't created and work for Tharizdun?* That's why they are so reveiled.

Even demons and devils can't stand them. Its also why they are diseased and decaying...channeling all that entropy will do that to you...

I mean T's symbol IS an inverted ziggurat, and hence the "Y" in Yugoloth .

And of course the reason they are building three towers is so they can bring him/it back....muhahahahaha....

Plus they dwell in Hades, which everyone knows is gloomy and lifesapping....because T was defeated there!

It all adds up I tell you...2+2 equal 5, which is one short of 6, which if you had three of them (666) you'da have the number of magical gems in T treasure hoard!!!!!!

/wanders off mumbling insanely...(leave my daemons and mythos alone)



* (specifically my campaign and since 1st edition, no canon here)