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

[I'm A Banana]

The Great Wheel is NOT and never has been, Planescape. The Great Wheel is core material in 1e. It's right there in the PHB and in other sources.

I'm with you here.

But, the idea that Planescape is indelibly connected to the Great Wheel is simply PS fans trying to backdoor their favorite setting into the core, when nothing about Planescape was ever core

Where you lose me is when you posit that there's some shadowy conspiracy of PS fans whose only goal is to force PS lore down your throat.

It goes back to something you posted earlier, about the lore needing to be good lore to be kept.

Turns out, PS planar lore is some of the best lore written for the Great Wheel...in fact, some of the best lore ever written for the D&D game, IMO. And even if you don't agree with that obvious fanboi opinion, it is widely agreed, and reflected in your own polling data, that PS lore is quite good lore.

So if you're taking my recommendation of "maximal lore," preserving all models where possible without contradiction, the PS lore doesn't get invalidated. It might not get explicitly referenced -- lore is referenced only as needed, and most games involving Yugoloths take place on the material world where their backstory doesn't matter much. But PS lore and 1e lore don't often contradict, either, and where they do, it's probably still possible to preserve both models in most cases by allowing both things to be true.

 

[Alzrius]

But, you are mandating what is in the game. You are mandating that all lore in the game must be Planescape compatible. And THAT'S what's being objected to.

I'm not sure I'd call expressing one's opinion on what's preferable a mandate. That said, it's less about "compatibility" than it is about not being contradictory.

 

[Savage Wombat]

But, see, for those of us arguing against you, it was never core. It wasn't core in 2e, it was introduced in supplements. It wasn't core in 1e, it didn't exist yet. It wasn't core in 3e, at least not in core.

And that's where my objections stem from. Why do you get to say that your setting specific material, which was never presented in the core of the game, is actually part of the core of the game?

Except I believe we established (I'm not going to go digging in boxes) that concepts like the Blood War were present in the 2.0 Monstrous Compendium. Which is about as core as it gets. So that's why I "get to say" that - assuming that I remember correctly. If it isn't "setting specific", but was intended as core, then your premise collapses.

What you're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth has no identity, and creating an identity for fifth ed isn't changing canon. What we're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth was revised by the introduction of 2.0, and elaborated on in Planescape materials.

No one, certainly not Shemeska, is claiming the right to judge what is and what is not the "correct" interpretation of the monster. But we are saying that the Planescape books you object to merely elaborate on an expanded conception of the monster that was the intent of the 2.0 core rules.

From what I see, this isn't so much about Planescape fans wanting to define the identity of the planes, but the opponents wanting to keep direct references to the setting out of their books. And that's why this argument keeps going in circles. This thread hasn't really ever been about yugoloths - it's about your reaction to Shemeska's comment.

 

[Hussar]

Savage Wombat - two things. Number one, the Monstrous Compendium came out about half way through 2e and drew from a number of sources. Secondly, 2e and specifically TSR, tried to create the idea that every setting was all one. They tried to unify the settings through Planescape, and, to a lesser degree, Spelljammer.

Which meant that Planescape lore began in 2e, to infiltrate pretty much the entire line. 3e was, IMO, a breath of fresh air in that it rejected most of Planescape lore, or left it on the cutting room floor, or put it back into setting specific books, where, again IMO, it belongs.

4e took 3e a step further and began reexamining a lot of the existent lore with the idea that maybe some of that stuff wasn't quite as good as it could be. Which led to all sorts of issues with people judging the new material, not based on its own merits, but on how far it deviated from what came before. Eladrin were bad, not because blink elves are bad, but because Eladrin had to be Angel Elves as defined in Planescape. Succubi couldn't possibly be devils since the game had always had them as demons. Whether or not they actually fit there wasn't the issue. What came before must be preserved.

What you're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth has no identity, and creating an identity for fifth ed isn't changing canon. What we're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth was revised by the introduction of 2.0, and elaborated on in Planescape materials.

See, that's the issue though. The Yugoloth, or Daemon, was changed by Planescape to fit with Planescape canon. Yugoloth as the evil behind the evil is a major revision of what came before. It makes perfect sense in Planescape. And I have no problems with it being in Planescape. I'm just not sure why the Planescape, setting specific version, is considered the core version.

The only people who think that the elaborated Yugoloth is the core version is Planescape fans. The rest of us don't.

Turns out, PS planar lore is some of the best lore written for the Great Wheel...in fact, some of the best lore ever written for the D&D game, IMO. And even if you don't agree with that obvious fanboi opinion, it is widely agreed, and reflected in your own polling data, that PS lore is quite good lore.

I'd say that it's pretty easy to be best in a field of one. No one was ever allowed to change Planescape lore, so we never got to see anything else. At least, not until 4e. Like Shemeska said earlier, if you wanted to get printed in Dragon or Dungeon, you had to do your PS homework and make sure it was all PS compatible. I'm thinking that has a LOT to do with the editorial staff at Dungeon and Dragon at the time.

Not until 4e did we even get the inkling of another cosmology for D&D. For twenty years, or there abouts, the Planescape bunch had the field sewn up tight and no one could get a word in edgewise. Any change was immediately jumped on as bad if it did not follow Planescape canon. Should Slaad be outsiders or Far Realms creatures? I don't know. I'd like to be able to discuss the merits of both ideas though without having people tell me that I'm wrong if I think Far Realms might be a good idea. Could Modrons be changed to make them a bit easier to use at the table and not so niche? I think so, but, any proposed change gets shouted down because it's not Planescape. Could Yugoloth worship gods? No. Absolutely not, because it counters Planescape lore. Could Demons and devils work together? Again, absolutely not because it counters Planescape lore. On and on and on.

Go back through every recent thread on the Wandering Monsters related to anything planar. You'll see it over and over again. Any proposed change is automatically rejected if it does not follow, to the letter, setting specific material.

I have no interest in "maximal" lore, if maximal means Planescape Uber Alles.

 

[pemerton]

PS planar lore is some of the best lore written for the Great Wheel...in fact, some of the best lore ever written for the D&D game, IMO. And even if you don't agree with that obvious fanboi opinion, it is widely agreed, and reflected in your own polling data, that PS lore is quite good lore.

So if you're taking my recommendation of "maximal lore," preserving all models where possible without contradiction, the PS lore doesn't get invalidated.

it's less about "compatibility" than it is about not being contradictory.

The logical upshot of avoiding contradiction or invalidation of Planescape lore, though, is that so many other possibilities are excluded - because Planescape has tons of lore, minutiae on just about everything.

Or, alternatively, changes to lore get treated as in-fiction, metaplot changes (like KM's idea that 4e daemons are PS yugoloths who have served, or even transformed into, demons) - which itself injects story elements and complexities that not everyone wants.

Does every treatment of Lolth as a core deity have to fit with every single thing ever written about her in FR material? I don't think so. It stifles creativity, and produces a core fiction which is narrowly appealing to those who keep up with an ever-more-convoluted canon, rather than a fiction which is broadly appealing and widely useable and used.

I think super hero movies are a reasonable model here. They don't generally throw canon to the winds, but they adapt it, precisify it, jettison bits that, upon reflection, are silly rather than awesome.

What you're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth has no identity, and creating an identity for fifth ed isn't changing canon. What we're claiming is that the "core" yugoloth was revised by the introduction of 2.0, and elaborated on in Planescape materials.

On this logic, the "core yugoloth" was further revised by 4e, and elaborated on in Demonomicon. As I've outline above, the 4e treatment fits as well with what is found in the original AD&D materials as does the Planescape version.

 

[Shemeska]

Savage Wombat - two things. Number one, the Monstrous Compendium came out about half way through 2e and drew from a number of sources. Secondly, 2e and specifically TSR, tried to create the idea that every setting was all one.

That actually started in 1e, and 2e just continued that concept. 3e didn't make it mandatory (see Eberron with its own cosmology, and FR with a nominally sorta-kinda separated cosmology yet with links to the Great Wheel still presented), but the vast majority of planar lore was retained in harmony with the 1e/2e development.

3e was, IMO, a breath of fresh air in that it rejected most of Planescape lore

You've said that numerous times in this thread Hussar, and it hasn't been remotely correct in any of those instances. I've pointed it out as have others. It's getting a bit futile to have a conversation here because a half dozen or a dozen pages later you keep repeating the same arguments and some of the same incorrect statements time and again.

Not until 4e did we even get the inkling of another cosmology for D&D.

Setting specific cosmologies in 3e? They had their own planar lore as it applied, and for instance it was pointed out in places how to handle various D&D planar creatures in setting specific cosmologies like Eberron.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The logical upshot of avoiding contradiction or invalidation of Planescape lore, though, is that so many other possibilities are excluded - because Planescape has tons of lore, minutiae on just about everything.

I don't know about excluded. All other Great Wheel material should be included, too. PS lore shouldn't be served at the expense of that material (and vice versa). So all previous lore should also be included (ie: the idea of yugoloths having a few/a lot/all members "gone native" with the demons).

Where PS is the only D&D material to speak on a thing, it probably gets to continue to speak on it alone. There's no reasonable expectation that brand new lore needs to be accommodated in existing creatures.

Or, alternatively, changes to lore get treated as in-fiction, metaplot changes (like KM's idea that 4e daemons are PS yugoloths who have served, or even transformed into, demons) - which itself injects story elements and complexities that not everyone wants.

The complexity only emerges at a deep level of engagement with the lore, and it is essentially opt-in. The baseline story element should, where possible, simply leave room for that complexity, while focusing on the creature's essential traits that have carried over consistently. If you choose to go deeper than that, you are greeted with several options, rather than The Way It Must Be.

Does every treatment of Lolth as a core deity have to fit with every single thing ever written about her in FR material? I don't think so. It stifles creativity, and produces a core fiction which is narrowly appealing to those who keep up with an ever-more-convoluted canon, rather than a fiction which is broadly appealing and widely useable and used.

I don't know that I agree with "stifles creativity." It rather encourages it: reconcile the lore or choose to defy it or make your own spider-goddess and don't bother with Lolth as a crutch. Either way, you are engaging in remix, iteration, and/or invention, which are all the roots of creativity.

I think super hero movies are a reasonable model here. They don't generally throw canon to the winds, but they adapt it, precisify it, jettison bits that, upon reflection, are silly rather than awesome.

This works in a passive media, but it isn't as effective in a media where the audience is also a creator. Since one person's silly is another's sublime, there cannot be effective gatekeepers who determine what is permissible lore for millions of people. Either you serve people's games what they actually want and need, or people play a game that will allow that (Pathfinder). The audience isn't a passive recipient of a message, but must be an active creator of their own messages.

There is no Christopher Nolan to deliver a unique vision of what Batman is. There is rather millions of Nolans, all with their own vision of Batman, having a private screening of a fan-made movie with four of their friends (who also have ideas on what this Batman should be like). A monolithic vision isn't useful as a game play element.

 

[avin]

4e took 3e a step further and began reexamining a lot of the existent lore with the idea that maybe some of that stuff wasn't quite as good as it could be.

And now they are moving back to Great Wheel because maybe 4E lore wasn't quite as good as they thought

4EMM lore was heavily criticized on Wotc boards, even by 4E diehard fans. Fluff was poorly written and full of Primordials vs Gods stuff.

A lot of people, including people who did not migrate to 4E, enjoyed World Axis cosmology, but as for lore per se (with a few exceptions), I don't recall much initial love.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Savage Wombat - two things. Number one, the Monstrous Compendium came out about half way through 2e and drew from a number of sources. Secondly, 2e and specifically TSR, tried to create the idea that every setting was all one. They tried to unify the settings through Planescape, and, to a lesser degree, Spelljammer.

Incorrect. You're thinking, I believe, of the hardback volume. The original MC came out at the start of 2e like the other books, just in a loose-leaf binder. The yugoloths were contained in the first two or three volumes and specifically mention the Blood War. I.E. not Planescape - CORE.

 

[Alzrius]

The logical upshot of avoiding contradiction or invalidation of Planescape lore, though, is that so many other possibilities are excluded - because Planescape has tons of lore, minutiae on just about everything.

Or, alternatively, changes to lore get treated as in-fiction, metaplot changes (like KM's idea that 4e daemons are PS yugoloths who have served, or even transformed into, demons) - which itself injects story elements and complexities that not everyone wants.

Does every treatment of Lolth as a core deity have to fit with every single thing ever written about her in FR material? I don't think so. It stifles creativity, and produces a core fiction which is narrowly appealing to those who keep up with an ever-more-convoluted canon, rather than a fiction which is broadly appealing and widely useable and used.

I think super hero movies are a reasonable model here. They don't generally throw canon to the winds, but they adapt it, precisify it, jettison bits that, upon reflection, are silly rather than awesome.

The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the positives that such lore provides, particularly in the absence of any other guidance regarding just what a creature is, or what it does and why. Taken to its logical conclusion, by this reasoning all creatures should just be stat blocks with no descriptive text whatsoever, since anything will invalidate some perception of the "right" way of using the creature.

The lore is, as you said, "a fiction which is broadly appealing and widely usable and used" which by your own logic is a good thing. A lack of lore leaves a blank page that many people find frustrating, especially as a purchased product (which carries some expectation that it's going to do at least some of the heavy lifting for you).

To take your superhero movies example, the current Spider-Man reboot was too shackled to existing lore (e.g. Peter Parker, rather than Miles Morales), and so inhibited the enjoyment of the audience.