Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monsters of Many Names - Wandering Monsters (Yugoloth!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6132001" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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". </p><p></p><p>Ideas should be judged on their own merits, not just, "Does this follow canon?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6132001, member: 22779"] 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: 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: 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?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monsters of Many Names - Wandering Monsters (Yugoloth!)
Top