Product page for Volo's Guide to Monsters updated

Oh that is a nice preface.

 

[flametitan]

It's not confirmed that the Amber Temple Vistages are the Dark Powers. Just that they are theorized to be.

To be fair, it is stated that the vestiges are in fact where Strahd got his ability to become a vampire, so I think it's supposed to be implied that they are the dark powers.

However, you are right that it isn't stated they are the Dark Powers of Ravenloft. And thinking about it, they are entombed there, and don't really seem to have the ability to shift Barovia to its own plane, so it's highly likely they aren't the Dark Powers that rule the demiplane.

EDIT: I actually rather enjoy the way the Sun is handled in CoS. It's a nod towards folkloric vampires, who weren't actually vulnerable to sunlight, though they were more proactive at night.

 

[Parmandur]

Where does it say that the quick rules table is not AL legal?

Why would they be AL legal?

 

[Parmandur]

Hickman's original idea idea was mysandrist. I read what they said was the catalyst for him, which was basically being monsterous was a male trait, and they wanted to discourage women from aping this trait. I'm paraprasing it, but I lost all interest in the book when I read that.

Vampires are rape monsters so yeah Strahd is a model of an abusive dude: no sparkling anti-hero, which is great.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Maybe "Appendix A - NPC" as in MM?

That does make sense, but it's odd that appendices, if any, weren't mentioned in the more detailed breakdown given us...

 

[gyor]

Vampires are rape monsters so yeah Strahd is a model of an abusive dude: no sparkling anti-hero, which is great.

That not the part that I had a problem with, it was the implication that being monsterous was an inheriantly male trait, that women were only aping. I can list for you women who have commited acts of rape, murder, particapated in acts of genocide, spread hate liteture, torture, mutiliation ect..., not because of men or maculanity, but because of their own issues. Demoning one gender as the source of all evil, while indicating that the other gender is harmless and ungood unless under a bad influence is insulting.

 

[gyor]

I apologize for the thread drift.

Anyway I hope the Shadar Kai are in, I always liked the Shadar Kai.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

That not the part that I had a problem with, it was the implication that being monsterous was an inheriantly male trait, that women were only aping. I can list for you women who have commited acts of rape, murder, particapated in acts of genocide, spread hate liteture, torture, mutiliation ect..., not because of men or maculanity, but because of their own issues. Demoning one gender as the source of all evil, while indicating that the other gender is harmless and ungood unless under a bad influence is insulting.

There are female Vampires too. Not sure were you getting this from. The foreword does not say anything about it being a male trait.

The Foreword states that vampires have been very romanticized. When honestly there is nothing really redeemable about them. Which is why Strahd is more a return to the roots of the vampire, a horrid monster hiding behind the mask of being comely and alluring.

Hickman's original idea idea was mysandrist. I read what they said was the catalyst for him, which was basically being monsterous was a male trait, and they wanted to discourage women from aping this trait. I'm paraprasing it, but I lost all interest in the book when I read that.

This is not in the foreword so were did this come from.

 

[PMárk]

The Foreword states that vampires have been very romanticized. When honestly there is nothing really redeemable about them. Which is why Strahd is more a return to the roots of the vampire, a horrid monster hiding behind the mask of being comely and alluring.

And I highly disliked it, when read it the first time. Vampires were 2 bit villains in the old stories. Then things happened. Anne Rice happened, Vampire the Masquerade happened, people started to asking the questions "What if there is a person behind the mask of the monster? What if the monsters have feelings? What if they don't want to be a monster, but they have to?". Note that i also highly dislike the latest trends which made the vampires not a monster, but cute guys (yes, I say guys, because most of those books are written like that) with emphasis on sexuality and superpowers, without the drawbacks, or making those drawbacks inconsequential. My preferred vampires are monsters, yes, but monsters with personality, with potentially redeeming qualities, who struggle with their inner beast and some lose the fight, some doesn't even want to fight, but some are.

What to say? I'm a really big fan of Masquerade. I like moralizing and grey areas beside the black and white.

I liked Strahd had good sides, but warped to a monster because of fear, lust and envy. I liked there was a "good" vampire in The Vampire of Mists who put up a fight against Strahd. I never thought of Strahd as a poor, misunderstood antihero. He was a villain through and through, but a more interesting and plausible villain.

Edit: actually that's one of the things I like more in FR than Golarion, namely the handling of the drow. In fact I like how FR drow became more nuanced, not a "they are eeeeeviiiil, you can't play them, they are eeeeeeeevil!!!!!!" thing. Golarion drow have a lot of good ideas, I like the backstory, i like a lot of their concepts, like fleshwarping, but i also like how FR drow became plausible people, not 2 bit villains. Oh and i like the spider-y aesthetics better than the Golarion version of "grinning demon faces on everything".

 

[gantzerteo]

Let's stay in topic asking about Drow if they will be in the first chapter with maybe some official expansion stats tables in the third?

 

[Parmandur]

And I highly disliked it, when read it the first time. Vampires were 2 bit villains in the old stories. Then things happened. Anne Rice happened, Vampire the Masquerade happened, people started to asking the questions "What if there is a person behind the mask of the monster? What if the monsters have feelings? What if they don't want to be a monster, but they have to?". Note that i also highly dislike the latest trends which made the vampires not a monster, but cute guys (yes, I say guys, because most of those books are written like that) with emphasis on sexuality and superpowers, without the drawbacks, or making those drawbacks inconsequential. My preferred vampires are monsters, yes, but monsters with personality, with potentially redeeming qualities, who struggle with their inner beast and some lose the fight, some doesn't even want to fight, but some are.

What to say? I'm a really big fan of Masquerade. I like moralizing and grey areas beside the black and white.

I liked Strahd had good sides, but warped to a monster because of fear, lust and envy. I liked there was a "good" vampire in The Vampire of Mists who put up a fight against Strahd. I never thought of Strahd as a poor, misunderstood antihero. He was a villain through and through, but a more interesting and plausible villain.

Edit: actually that's one of the things I like more in FR than Golarion, namely the handling of the drow. In fact I like how FR drow became more nuanced, not a "they are eeeeeviiiil, you can't play them, they are eeeeeeeevil!!!!!!" thing. Golarion drow have a lot of good ideas, I like the backstory, i like a lot of their concepts, like fleshwarping, but i also like how FR drow became plausible people, not 2 bit villains. Oh and i like the spider-y aesthetics better than the Golarion version of "grinning demon faces on everything".

Yeeaaah, but this was intended as a corrective to those trends.