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

[Dausuul]

Wow, did Ryan Dancey not know how to spell "canon" properly?

Apparently not. That aside, however, it's an interesting post. I managed to dig up the whole thing here.

 

[Weather Report]

Planescape is not an "elaboration" on the planar appendix of the PHB, or even on the AD&D MoP. It's a whole lot of lore poured into what was, up to that point, largely an empty vessel.

I disagree, Planescape was a crystallisation of the classic AD&D cosmology (with some extra flavour slathered on top).

And the 1st Ed MotP was certainly not largely an "empty vessel".

 

[Stoat]

I disagree, Planescape was a crystallisation of the classic AD&D cosmology (with some extra flavour slathered on top).

And the 1st Ed MotP was certainly not largely an "empty vessel".

I think it depends on what parts of Planescape you focus on. When I think of Planescape, I think of Sigil, the Factions, Rule of Three, portal keys, Dabus, etc. That stuff is unique to the setting and not present in the 1E MotP.

 

[pemerton]

Adding to what [MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION] says, the 1st ed MoP gives planar travel mechanics, and says a bit about the basic geography/terrain of the planes. But it doesn't say much about history or relationships oe rationales. Which (for me at least) is the core of Planescape lore.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta disagree here Shemeska. Planescape was the only standard, but, hardly a gold one. I guess it could be considered top of the heap when it's the only one in the race.

But, TSR tried to force PS into everything. Every setting had to be connected to Sigil in some way. Every planar creature had to be connected to Sigil in some way. On and on. It was very, very obnoxious to those of us who didn't buy into the Planescape setting at all. I would have the same reaction for any other setting that did the same thing. Spelljammer being a poster child here as was Ravenloft to a lesser extent.

Now, as far as your monster write up, fair enough. But, what does being silent serve? It serves Planescape fans, sure. But, why? Does it make Yugoloths more interesting to not refer to gods at all in the write up? Maybe. I'd argue that referencing them one way or the other (work for or hate) makes them more interesting because it provides more hooks.

Now, which hook is more compelling? We can argue that back and forth either way and there's good points to be made on either side. Fair enough.

But, that's not what happened. What happened was someone earlier in the thread put forth the idea that making Yugoloths serve evil gods might be interesting. The idea wasn't rejected because the idea was bad. It was rejected because it counters some established element of a single setting.

So, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], it's not like making goblins into faerie knights. That would contradict everything ever written about goblins directly. Every edition has had slightly different takes on goblins, but, by and large, "faerie knight" would contradict every single edition. OTOH, adding in "Can do for-hire jobs for evil gods" does not contradict anything in any edition, only one single setting. It adds to the monster, and subtracts nothing.

Now, is adding this idea a good one? I don't know. Frankly I don't care that much. But, I find it interesting that the idea is rejected, not because it's a bad one, but because it contradicts PS lore. I read the Minotaur article you pointed out and I think you missed the point:

You’ll notice that this story incorporates some elements of the Greek myth back into the D&D monster, but doesn’t really address the variant minotaurs of D&D history. Well, we think we’d have to stretch the idea of the minotaur too far to incorporate both sailor-soldiers and cunning skin-changers. Both of those monsters can exist in the D&D game, but in separate monster (or player character race) entries for Krynn minotaurs and yikaria.

In other words, the setting specific minotaurs get shuffled out of core with the core minotaur directly contradicting those creatures. So, I really don't think the article says what you think it says. It's saying that setting specific monsters get to have setting specific entries, but core monsters won't actually refer to any setting specific lore. Granted:

As much as possible, when we look at monsters, we’re trying to take an inclusive approach: whatever you love about a monster from any edition of the game ought to still be possible in the new game, not contradicted by any lore we present.

but, it's not like they are completely wedded to the idea. I mean James Wyatt basically contradicts himself in the article. "We aren't going to change lore of monsters, but sometimes we are".

Ideas should be judged on their own merits, not just, "Does this follow canon?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], it's not like making goblins into faerie knights. That would contradict everything ever written about goblins directly. Every edition has had slightly different takes on goblins, but, by and large, "faerie knight" would contradict every single edition. OTOH, adding in "Can do for-hire jobs for evil gods" does not contradict anything in any edition, only one single setting. It adds to the monster, and subtracts nothing.

We don't need to contradict anything. And there's no benefit to be gained from the "servants of evil gods" take.

In other words, the setting specific minotaurs get shuffled out of core with the core minotaur directly contradicting those creatures. So, I really don't think the article says what you think it says. It's saying that setting specific monsters get to have setting specific entries, but core monsters won't actually refer to any setting specific lore.

We're going to give separate entries for different types of minotaur, so that everyone can play the kind of minotaur they like without changing the core. (what the article implies)

vs.

We're going to give you a brand new take on yugoloths that forces folks who have been fans of them to change the core lore. (what you have been advocating)

You tell me the difference.

I've never really objected to the 'loths as the original "you can summon them and they work with both demons and devils" from the early game. A little milquetoast, but there's no reason they can't fill that role in a typical D&D game centered on the material world. What I object to is a new take that invalidates the old lore, because it's pointless, unnecessary, and, perhaps most importantly, it breaks the fun of the game for a lot of people.

Ideas should be judged on their own merits, not just, "Does this follow canon?"

The entire thread before you arrived was dedicated to the merits of the existing yugoloth lore, the lore that IS canon. Meritorious lore isn't incompatible with canon. Quite the opposite: if someone somewhere is cherishing that canon, it's probably because there is merit to be found in it. Imagining people are clinging to canon like some sort of reactionary security blanket is insulting and arrogant. Ryan Dancey wasn't wrong, some D&D writing blooooooooooows, but the thing about bad writing and bad game design is that people don't use it, don't like it, and don't care when it's changed. If someone's using it, valuing, and cherishing it, feeling all emotional about it, it's worth respecting that person as a sane and cogent human being, learning from them what they see it in, and viewing the world through their eyes for a moment, at least long enough to see what they see in that crappy idea.

I mean, no one really misses the Ythrak. It wasn't the greatest idea. THAC0 isn't exactly pined for, either. No one wants gender-based ability score adjustments to come back. 3e grapple rules aren't something you see people wanting to cling to, and neither is armor vs. weapon tables. There's probably a few apologists and hold-outs for those, but few people who would have their fun ruined by pretending those bits of the game didn't exist.

Yugoloth lore clearly doesn't fall into that camp as far as the fan-base of D&D is concerned. It might not drive your engine, but kender don't drive mine. I don't want to redefine kender as, I dunno, a race of scrupulous businessmen. You want to redefine yugoloths as servants of evil gods. That's a problem.

 

[Alzrius]

Ideas should be judged on their own merits, not just, "Does this follow canon?"

This overlooks that sometimes (in my opinion, many times) following the canon is part the merit of an idea. Likewise, part of an idea's faults (that is, the qualities opposite of merit) can be that it breaks from canon - especially if doing so necessarily discards all of the good ideas (e.g. the merits) that the canon contained.

 

[Hussar]

Looking at the Wandering Monsters, Not Just a Shaggy Ogre article, I notice exactly what I'm talking about.
[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] - in the article, look at James Wyatt's final write up of the minotaur:

The creatures most commonly called minotaurs are large, shaggy, savage, and evil. They’re not a race, per se—they’re more like a phenomenon. Baphomet has many cultists throughout the world, and they view morality and custom as shackles that prevent people from living according to their true nature: as animals do. Baphomet is the lord of the Beast Within, teaching his cultists to cast off those chains and live in savage freedom. Sometimes, when Baphomet’s petitioners plead with him for strength and power, he rewards them by transforming them into minotaurs. Some cultists thus transformed view it as a blessing, others as a curse, and each viewpoint largely depends on the opinion they held of Baphomet before the transformation.

The transformation often happens to a single cultist—sometimes a leader and sometimes an ambitious underling. In some of these cases, the minotaur remains with the Baphomet cult, serving the cult as both a guardian and a totem or icon of sorts. Other times, the minotaur flees from the cult’s shrine or temple and makes its own way in the world. When a group of minotaurs is encountered, it’s typically what remains of an entire cult of Baphomet that received his blessing at once. These groups rarely number more than eight.

Note, this write up counters every single established version of a minotaur. Minotaurs in D&D have NEVER looked like this in any edition or in any setting. This actually invalidates the minotaur of every single edition.

But, apparently that's perfectly acceptable. It's okay that this 5e minotaur looks nothing like any previous version of a minotaur, other than physically.

But, I want to change a single sentence of Planescape and you'll argue with me for 20 pages? And I'm being unreasonable? I'm the one that wants to "completely rewrite" a monster for changing a single line that only appears in a single setting? And that's unacceptable. But, completely invalidating every single version of a minotaur ever published for any edition is perfectly fine.

So, tell me again how this is not protecting PS lore for PS lore's sake. If you have such a huge issue with maintaining canon, why is it perfectly acceptable to have a completely new minotaur, but, it's not acceptable to even discuss the idea of a god serving yugoloth?

Can you not see how this looks from the outside? You have no problems completely ignoring canon for stuff outside of Planescape, even to the point of holding it up as an example of "doing it right". But, any alteration to Planescape canon, regardless of how insignificant (and yes, adding a single sentence to yugoloths is a pretty minor change) is viewed as heretical and must never be allowed to happen.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Can you not see how this looks from the outside? You have no problems completely ignoring canon for stuff outside of Planescape, even to the point of holding it up as an example of "doing it right".

Yugoloth lore clearly doesn't fall into that camp as far as the fan-base of D&D is concerned. It might not drive your engine, but kender don't drive mine. I don't want to redefine kender as, I dunno, a race of scrupulous businessmen.

As someone from the outside, Hussar, I think we're reading different things, here. As always, play what you like

 

[RichGreen]

Looking at the Wandering Monsters, Not Just a Shaggy Ogre article, I notice exactly what I'm talking about.
[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] - in the article, look at James Wyatt's final write up of the minotaur

I think it's probably worth pointing out that James Wyatt went back to the minotaur after lukewarm feedback to the "More Than Just a Shaggy Ogre" version here. Without wishing to open another can of worms, having read both articles, I am jolly relieved that the idea to merge the yikaria/yakmen with minotaurs was ditched. I love those guys and they have a key role to play in my campaign

Cheers


Rich