Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6132826" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's about the assumptions of the game.&nbsp; The game assumes kender, and also assumes hobittesque halflings. The game assumes Baphomet minotaurs, and also assumes Krynn's minotaurs. The game can assume 4e eladrin exist alongside 2e eladrin. But if the game assumes that yugoloths are categorically the servants of the evil gods, that doesn't leave room for yugoloths to hate the gods. Suddenly, in order to play with lore that you've used perfectly fine for decades, you need to make a change to the game's assumptions.You don't have to do that to play a pirate minotaur. As far as we've been told, if you want to play a pirate minotaur, the game will be like, &quot;Cool, we get that, here's what you need.&quot; Writing the game with the assumption that yugoloth are the servants of a evil deities is like when they wrote 4e with the assumption that all eladrin were this particular kind of creature (a creature that had no relation to what had come before), rather than leaving room, as we can project that 5e will do, for the versions that already exist.If you're interested in creating a variant yugoloth that IS the servant of evil gods, I'd ask a different set of questions. For starters: why don't any of the other creatures that have been the servants of evil gods over the last few decades fill the bill well enough? Why do we NEED a variant yugoloth that does that? But I gathered from his assertions that he wasn't actually proposing the change (but rather debating the reason for opposing the change), that this wasn't really Hussar's main point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6132826, member: 2067"] It's about the assumptions of the game. The game assumes kender, and also assumes hobittesque halflings. The game assumes Baphomet minotaurs, and also assumes Krynn's minotaurs. The game can assume 4e eladrin exist alongside 2e eladrin. But if the game assumes that yugoloths are categorically the servants of the evil gods, that doesn't leave room for yugoloths to hate the gods. Suddenly, in order to play with lore that you've used perfectly fine for decades, you need to make a change to the game's assumptions. You don't have to do that to play a pirate minotaur. As far as we've been told, if you want to play a pirate minotaur, the game will be like, "Cool, we get that, here's what you need." Writing the game with the assumption that yugoloth are the servants of a evil deities is like when they wrote 4e with the assumption that all eladrin were [I]this particular kind of creature[/I] (a creature that had no relation to what had come before), rather than leaving room, as we can project that 5e will do, for the versions that already exist. If you're interested in creating a variant yugoloth that IS the servant of evil gods, I'd ask a different set of questions. For starters: why don't any of the other creatures that have been the servants of evil gods over the last few decades fill the bill well enough? Why do we NEED a variant yugoloth that does that? But I gathered from his assertions that he wasn't actually proposing the change (but rather debating the reason for opposing the change), that this wasn't really Hussar's main point. [/QUOTE]

Verification