Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6382643" data-attributes="member: 87792">Of course it goes both ways.&nbsp; The example &quot;Unicorn&quot; was not, I believe, an accidental one.&nbsp; Unicorns are creatures that have an existance that reaches far beyond D&amp;D (for that matter Unicorns appear in Harry Potter) - and as such they are going to always, always have more resonance than a D&amp;D exclusive monster.&nbsp; There are are about a dozen other mythological monsters on that list (of which the Succubus is one) which have more emotional weight than D&amp;D mythology.&nbsp; If it had been a Hamatsu and someone had moved its alignment, or they'd declared a Yugoloth was a demon, not a devil, that would have helped define the D&amp;D specific word far more than it would have defined the cosmology.&nbsp; (And had it been something that really really doesn't match the mythology, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes" target="_blank">Erinyes/the Furies of Greek Myth</a> then it just causes confusion).If, on the other hand, the source of unicorns in general is the Shadowfell and not the Feywild, that does really odd things to the planar structure.&nbsp; About as odd things as &quot;Unicorns all come from Mechanus&quot;.&nbsp; The tonal mismatch is profound in both cases.None of that is even close to true unless you confuse &quot;has no meaning&quot; with &quot;Is unremarkable&quot;.&nbsp; Such dualism is, as a philosophy, not just false but actively harmful (and doubly so when it becomes Balance Is King).And [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION], is mathematical chaos chaos or in fact a very deep kind of order?But anyway [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] is right.&nbsp; We're drifting into the realms of real world religion and politics here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6382643, member: 87792"] Of course it goes both ways. The example "Unicorn" was not, I believe, an accidental one. Unicorns are creatures that have an existance that reaches far beyond D&D (for that matter Unicorns appear in [I]Harry Potter)[/I] - and as such they are going to always, always have more resonance than a D&D exclusive monster. There are are about a dozen other mythological monsters on that list (of which the Succubus is one) which have more emotional weight than D&D mythology. If it had been a Hamatsu and someone had moved its alignment, or they'd declared a Yugoloth was a demon, not a devil, that would have helped define the D&D specific word far more than it would have defined the cosmology. (And had it been something that really [I]really[/I] doesn't match the mythology, like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes"]Erinyes/the Furies of Greek Myth[/URL] then it just causes confusion). If, on the other hand, the source of unicorns in general is the Shadowfell and not the Feywild, that does [I]really[/I] odd things to the planar structure. About as odd things as "Unicorns all come from Mechanus". The tonal mismatch is profound in both cases. None of that is even close to true unless you confuse "has no meaning" with "Is unremarkable". Such dualism is, as a philosophy, not just false but actively harmful (and doubly so when it becomes Balance Is King). And [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION], is mathematical chaos chaos or in fact a very deep kind of order? But anyway [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] is right. We're drifting into the realms of real world religion and politics here. [/QUOTE]

Verification