D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Morons and Salads

[the Jester]

Also, they seriously need to ratchet back the Far Realms ideas. They went somewhat overboard already in 4e with making far too many things created by or influenced by Lovecraft-land, and dear God they don't need to go further down that road and put that influence into the Slaadi. The Far Realms aren't Chaos. Chaos is the not the Far Realms.

I am in absolute agreement with Shemeska here; if "aberrant" means "touched by the Far Realms," then slaadi should NOT be aberrations.

Regarding the quintessential chaos race, I'm of the mind that it should consist entirely of unique individuals, inspired looong ago by a brief note in passing in the 1e Deities & Demigods:

The servants, functionaries and minions of some deities (demons, devils, couatl, ki-rin, titans, and others) are actually spirits put into those forms for the purposes of the deity. It should be noted that the forms listed in the MONSTER MANUAL are by no means the only ones these servants can take- some chaotic deities rule planes where no two beings have the same form!

 

[jrowland]

Seems to me that for both of these races, a fundamental assumption is the very nature of the alignments they represent. Applying the K.I.S.S. principle, I think sticking with Planescape definitions is the way to go.

However, to delve into the forum morass that is alignment: It seems there are two types of chaos being discussed. There is the Chaos-as-Entropy, ie chaos is destructive. Pure Chaos is an orb of annihilation. Very serene and tranquil in and of itself, but the chaos left in the wake of its passing is what is meant by chaos. Then there is the Chaos-as-Random.

I think both are interesting, but both lead to very Different results in lore: I think Chaos-as-Entropy/destruction makes for a better "Monster". Chaos-as-Random makes for a better story or "antagonist". In some respects, 4E cosmology went down the Chaos-as-Entropy path and earlier editions were more Chaos-as-random.

The tranquility of a sphere of annihilation is a very Taoist counterpoint to the Chaos it creates. The white dot in the center of the black half (yin) of the Yin Yang. Perfection of self, Chaos in effects. Here Chaos is Destruction. For Slaad, The Slaad Lords are like the Sphere of Annihilation: Agents of Destruction, but themselves are perfect serenity. The Hierachy (colors) lead to more and more self-control. They begin as free agents, completely free from any idea of being "Slaad" and as they change, become more and more, collective. The SLaad Lords, are a Harmonious collective with one single collective will to destroy.

To keep the Taoist theme, Primus could be a being of Chaos in Self, with Law in effects. The entire Modron hierarchy is a reaction to Primus-as-Chaos-as-Randomness. Primus IS the penultimate Rogue Modron. In this case, Chaos isn't destructive, but rather Random. Rogue Modrons are "special agents" of Primus. Perhaps the randomness is simply that Primus has emotion, humanizing him. Or perhaps he is truly random. Modron hierarchy goes from the perfect drone and as it progresses, they become more personable, more individual, more Primus-like.

Then again, dichotomies within dichotomies makes my brain hurt. Yeah. Planescape. K.I.S.S.

 

[Celebrim]

However, to delve into the forum morass that is alignment: It seems there are two types of chaos being discussed. There is the Chaos-as-Entropy, ie chaos is destructive. Pure Chaos is an orb of annihilation. Very serene and tranquil in and of itself, but the chaos left in the wake of its passing is what is meant by chaos. Then there is the Chaos-as-Random.

It's worth noting I'm not using either one in exactly that meaning.

In general, the one word summaries would be:

Good = Construction
Evil = Destruction
Law = Other
Chaos = Self
Nuetrality = Passivity

A sphere of annihiliation is therefore an expression of purest evil - the universe eating itself until it is empty, void, and gone and then eating even that until even absence is gone and there is and never has been anything.

Chaos is the expression of individuality, uniqueness, variation, violition, freedom and accountability to self. It insists that all meaning is internal to the thing itself. It wants a world where objects fall not because they are acted on by an outside force, but because they have 'fallingness' inherent to their being. It's a world where things aren't red because of light falling upon them, but because redness is part of their being. It's world where the Newtonian principle of what is true here must be true throughout the universe doesn't apply because truth (to the extent any such thing exists at all) is a quality of the thing itself and distinct to itself. Everything is relative and nothing is related (save by choice). Randomness is in this conception not something chaos sees in itself, but a judgment being passed on it by someone from a lawful perspective - the trivialization of the most essential and valuable nature of the universe by someone that doesn't understand it.

Law is the opposite. The expression of connectivity, uniformity, predictability, duty, and accountability to others. It insists that all meaning is external. Things only have meaning in relationship to other things. The solitary thing has no meaningful traits, all of its essential nature is seen through interaction. Everything is related and nothing is relative. No atom is an island unto itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's plenty of room in the multiverse for some being that is "moar chaos" than the Slaadi, if they don't do it for you. But don't change the Slaadi into that. Slaadi are slaadi. Other things can do what they don't.

Likewise, if you want perfect beings of law but think modrons are goofy, then there's plenty of room for perfect beings of law other than modrons, but modrons should be modrons.

There's little need to reinvent the wheel, here. These creatures are what they are. Let them be that. If that's somehow not good enough, make new creatures, but don't change what these creatures are.

 

[Celebrim]

There's little need to reinvent the wheel, here. These creatures are what they are. Let them be that. If that's somehow not good enough, make new creatures, but don't change what these creatures are.

In the case of the Slaad, this assertion raises an immediate objection - what are these creatures? They have not been consistantly described from edition to edition, nor have they been consistantly portrayed. To a certain extent, we might account that a blessing, because afterall they are chaos, but blessing or curse I don't think there is a definitive description of the Slaad. If you think they are what they are, I want to know what you think they are.

 

[Dausuul]

In the case of the Slaad, this assertion raises an immediate objection - what are these creatures? They have not been consistantly described from edition to edition, nor have they been consistantly portrayed. To a certain extent, we might account that a blessing, because afterall they are chaos, but blessing or curse I don't think there is a definitive description of the Slaad. If you think they are what they are, I want to know what you think they are.

Ditto modrons. They haven't been given a very consistent portrayal, either. Planescape's "clockwork modrons" were as much a re-working of the original modron as anything 4E did. And then 4E had its own take on modrons, as on so many things.

 

[I'm A Banana]

what are these creatures?

Their essential traits as I've seen them have been: chaos-loving humanoid toads in a rainbow of colors who live on a plane of roiling formless chaos and who warp others with their attacks.

Ditto modrons.

Again, essential traits: Order-loving polyhedral/alien blend of flesh and machinery with a precise hierarchy who live on a plane of mechanical, immutable law and who occasionally march around reality and have some outcasts who get tainted.

I might have to see if I've got a mythopoetry article queued up on any of these...

 

[Shemeska]

Ditto modrons. They haven't been given a very consistent portrayal, either. Planescape's "clockwork modrons" were as much a re-working of the original modron as anything 4E did. And then 4E had its own take on modrons, as on so many things.

Sort of. Maybe?

1e didn't have very much detail on modrons and slaadi as a whole. Flavor text was never greatly abundant here, but it's to be respected for setting the baseline for a lot of stuff.
2e took the baseline from 1e and fleshed them out in beautifully substantial detail with everything from the PSMC entries, the Planes of Law and Planes of Chaos boxed sets, and even Ed Bonny's awesome Dragon article on the Slaad lords.
3e stayed with the same continuity, but with a lot less detail (except for a web enhancement to the 3e MotP) until very late in the edition with things like Ken Marable's Dragon article
4e with all due respect went off the rails with its attempt to redefine so many classic creatures, some much more so than others, but oftentimes using a classic name for something with tangential or zero connection to the past thirty years of shared development.

5e at least seems to be doing its homework some of the time. But they need to keep classic D&D product identity in mind and avoid slipping back to a few precious snowflake ideas from 4e however IMO (Far Realms everywhere!).

 

[steeldragons]

There's plenty of room in the multiverse for some being that is "moar chaos" than the Slaadi, if they don't do it for you. But don't change the Slaadi into that. Slaadi are slaadi. Other things can do what they don't.

Likewise, if you want perfect beings of law but think modrons are goofy, then there's plenty of room for perfect beings of law other than modrons, but modrons should be modrons.

There's little need to reinvent the wheel, here. These creatures are what they are. Let them be that. If that's somehow not good enough, make new creatures, but don't change what these creatures are.

Here here!

Sort of. Maybe?

1e didn't have very much detail on modrons and slaadi as a whole. Flavor text was never greatly abundant here, but it's to be respected for setting the baseline for a lot of stuff.
2e took the baseline from 1e and fleshed them out in beautifully substantial detail with everything from the PSMC entries, the Planes of Law and Planes of Chaos boxed sets, and even Ed Bonny's awesome Dragon article on the Slaad lords.
3e stayed with the same continuity, but with a lot less detail (except for a web enhancement to the 3e MotP) until very late in the edition with things like Ken Marable's Dragon article
4e with all due respect went off the rails with its attempt to redefine so many classic creatures, some much more so than others, but oftentimes using a classic name for something with tangential or zero connection to the past thirty years of shared development.

5e at least seems to be doing its homework some of the time. But they need to keep classic D&D product identity in mind and avoid slipping back to a few precious snowflake ideas from 4e however IMO (Far Realms everywhere!).

and Here, many more times!

 

[Shemeska]

I should also say that I believe that chaos is best represented by having at least TWO distinct chaos races. The Slaad embody chaos more destructive tendencies. I think that they should be balanced by a second incarnate race that embodies its more creative tendencies - a sybarite artisan race that farts rainbows and pukes flowers. Quite possibly they are the same race, just dealing with the same problem in their own ways.

Shameless plug, but you could always incorporate Pathfinder's proteans as counterparts to the Slaadi. Though in and of themselves they already incorporate the spectrum of destruction of stability, liberation of reality from order's tyranny, unending creation, whimsy and madness all wrapped up in serpentine form.

Of course WotC couldn't use them, nor Pathfinder's axiomites as a harmonious society of living mathematics to the modrons clockwork hivemind. But by the same token I wasn't able to use Slaadi or Modrons to populate Pathfinder's cosmology a few years ago, so I had to start over from scratch.