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

[Umbran]

What's with ramming all this Planescape crap down the throats of people who LOATHED Planescape the first time around.

What's with spewing vitriol over a few monsters?

Good grief, who cares?

That particular blade cuts both ways. If it isn't worth them caring about, it also isn't worth threadcrapping over.

 

[Weather Report]

Hussar, how familiar are you actually with 2e Planescape? Because those numbers above you're pulling out of the plane of quasi-elemental vaccuum are really grossly incorrect. Seriously, compare the material on the planes that originated in 2e to the material presented in 3e, because the vast majority of it remained intact. 3e just didn't go into as elaborate detail, but heck, if you look at the 3e MotP there are some portions that are virtually word for word from 2e sources (some of the dreamscapes in the Ethereal plane), most of the locations originated in Planescape, etc. They didn't use Sigilian cant slang, but the lore was retained in very large part.

Even when 4e at first rejected the Great Wheel in favor of its own World Axis cosmology, you have to notice that over time a lot of Planescape material started to get ported in, adapted to fit in some cases, but ported in nonetheless. Plus, look at where we're at now in terms of planar design. Clearly the 2e/3e material had some serious traction or else the outcry over its excision in 4e wouldn't have been so extreme and we wouldn't be seeing it returned to core status in the game again like we appear to be in 5e.

Disco, they tried to obfuscate (sorry, an annoyingly trendy word) it, but yeah, Sigil is even in the 4th Ed DMG 2.

The Disney/World Axis Cosmology is too trite (and convenient) for me.

Some of us like something a bit more sophisticated.

 

[pemerton]

I'm one of those who doesn't see a lot of need for "yugoloths"/"daemons" as a distinct branch of the fiendish family.

In Vault of the Drow, they were - in story role and game function - basically demon variants. This is how 4e casts them, and it works for me.

In Monster Manual II, they were still basically demon variants. There main differences were purely mechanical - different immunities, and funky magic resistance rules. The exception to this is Charon and Charonodaemons. I'm a big fan of these, and have used them in play, but their is no reason for them to be part of a family of fiends - they could equally be well be found in the Greek Myths section of Deities and Demigods. Or they could be grouped together with the Styx Devil as a type of devil - that steers souls to the afterlife provided the proper payment is made, but otherwise steals those souls for diabolic purposes. And in my own games I've used them as a distinct group of Astral/Ethereal inhabitants.

The Planescape-derived stuff doesn't do a lot for me personally. The idea that demons and devils are latecomers to the planar situation, and the real action involves obscure dealings of ancient entities that most PCs (and many players) probably won't know about, and sinister motives and schemes which (unlike, say, diabolical schemes) are too inhuman to be fathomed, implies that the things mortals typically do know and care about - eg demons and devils - are ultimately of little significance. It's a type of "gnosticisim of evil" which I personally find unappealing in an RPG. I don't object to backstory, but I'm not a big fan of backstory that reveals the concerns of the players and the PCs to have ultimately been misguided or grounded in ignorance.

To the extent that 4e preserves Planescape tropes, like the obyriths and the Blood War, it does it in a way that I feel reinforces the truth of what the PCs and players know - demons are a corruption of the natural order, and therefore a source of destruction; the devils' betrayal and fall is a consquence of their rejection of the divinely-ordained order - rather than being based on a "gnosticism of evil".

 

[gyor]

I think 5e's approach is to support multiple cosmologies.

So your likely to find Elemental Archons in the MM (with a new name) along Celetial Archons, Yugoloths along side Shadar-Kai, Feywild Eldarin (likely with a name change), along side Aborean Eldarin, Astral Devas along side Incarnate Devas.

This way you can use what you want for the Cosmology you prefer.

Just a thought, but because they're moving away from Angels as servants of Evil Gods too, perhaps Yugoloths could take thier place. Just a throught.

 

[SkidAce]

Good grief, who cares?

Those of us who used them since the MM2 in 1st E.

 

[SkidAce]

I think 5e's approach is to support multiple cosmologies.

So your likely to find Elemental Archons in the MM (with a new name) along Celetial Archons, Yugoloths along side Shadar-Kai, Feywild Eldarin (likely with a name change), along side Aborean Eldarin, Astral Devas along side Incarnate Devas.

This way you can use what you want for the Cosmology you prefer.

Just a thought, but because they're moving away from Angels as servants of Evil Gods too, perhaps Yugoloths could take thier place. Just a throught.

I'm hoping its like this also. Well except the use for Yugoloths...already got plans for them. (see the post upstream).

 

[Shemeska]

I think 5e's approach is to support multiple cosmologies.

So your likely to find Elemental Archons in the MM (with a new name) along Celetial Archons, Yugoloths along side Shadar-Kai, Feywild Eldarin (likely with a name change), along side Aborean Eldarin, Astral Devas along side Incarnate Devas.

This way you can use what you want for the Cosmology you prefer.

Just a thought, but because they're moving away from Angels as servants of Evil Gods too, perhaps Yugoloths could take thier place. Just a throught.

Unfortunately that wouldn't work, as the 'loths have an innate hatred of gods, and that role would contradict a lot of their schtick. While they'll work for them if it fits their own plans and the price is right, they'll never do it as servants as opposed to mercenaries, and at no point will they ever have faith in one of those divinities.

I'd personally prefer just a lot more unique servitors for specific evil gods, highlighting the lack of trust and unity among evil compared to angels/aasimon as collective servitors of good gods, without depriving evil gods of servitors of their own (and not having to rely exclusively on demons/devils/etc since those have their own goals and priorities that would be diminished by being primarily servitors to gods).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Harsh! As you've pointed out upthread, this logic will wipe out most of the classic humanoids. Next you'll be telling us we don't need bullywugs and gripli.

They actually have more differentiation than svarts and goblins: bullywugs are swamp frogs who have jumping attacks and grippli are tree frogs.

 

[Klaus]

They actually have more differentiation than svarts and goblins: bullywugs are swamp frogs who have jumping attacks and grippli are tree frogs.

I guess no one would cry if they became two subraces of the same race.

 

[pemerton]

On evil gods and their servants: 4e does a nice job of distinguishing between "evil" - a god like Bane or Asmodeus whose lack of moral scruple is essential to the gods' ability to defend themselves against the primordials (a bit like the traditional "angel of death/vengeance" paradox) - and "chaotic evil" - a god like Gruumsh, which is a bit like having the Rampaging Hulk on your side ie helpful as long as he doesn't turn on you.

The "evil", but not "chaotic evil", gods should have proper divine servants.