Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6131572" data-attributes="member: 2067">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.There's something out there that HAS been used before, that contradicts ABSOLUTELY nothing written about the critter. Why is that not even better?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.</blockquote>

Verification