The conventional pantheons are strongly influenced by the cotemporal expanse of the Far Realm which led to the stratification of the Outer Planes. Events in the nonlinear region are essentially fixed and it is convenient to think of them as causative to the Cataclysm out of which the demihuman races (and yugoloths) arose. Though seemingly made over into our own, however, the same universe still exists in which the celesternals are not divided between angels and devils, and persist in their...
View full commentThe conventional pantheons are strongly influenced by the cotemporal expanse of the Far Realm which led to the stratification of the Outer Planes. Events in the nonlinear region are essentially fixed and it is convenient to think of them as causative to the Cataclysm out of which the demihuman races (and yugoloths) arose. Though seemingly made over into our own, however, the same universe still exists in which the celesternals are not divided between angels and devils, and persist in their persecution of the demons, the giants have never ceased to rule over the apians within the spheres of light, the wildmen still contribute to the prosperity of the empires of the mind seekers, and the lesser abominations continue to dominate the gobbels. (The hermetic protoillithids are dismayed by their mind flayer descendants' decline into the subjugation of inferior servitors.) Fractured realities also exist in which the primary conflict is between Law and Chaos, for example, or the kingdoms of the giants coexist in peace with those of humanoids.
The three species of precosmological protohumans are related, though not closely, to the humanoid races. The several breeds of orcs are descendants of apians and an intermediate race between wildmen and humans, the cavemen. The interaction of wildmen and cavemen with gobbels led to the origins of dwarves, troglodytes, and also other protohuman races which diverged into bestial monstrous humanoids such as minotaurs and gnolls. Goblinoids and kuo-toa are the proud descendants of those gobbels whose bloodline was not sullied. Elves and sahuaguin claim similarly pure descent from the giants' apian slaves. The apians also crossbred with gobbels, producing another protohuman ancestor race, olbitlans, which rehybridized with apians to create halflings, and gobbels to produce gnomes. In most cases, humanoids related through a hybrid race can interbreed, but these small races are difficult to crossbreed.
Similarities in appearance and behavior have led to the existence of confusion among the original protohumans, humans, and contemporary protohumans such as gith and fey. Besides humans and mermen, shadar-kai, githyanki and githzerai are all descendants of wildmen, who were initially adopted by their protoillithid patrons because they demonstrated admirable loyalty to the group. Fey have both apian and wildmen blood and were shaped by their exposure to elemental forces, whereas the disobedient...
View full commentSimilarities in appearance and behavior have led to the existence of confusion among the original protohumans, humans, and contemporary protohumans such as gith and fey. Besides humans and mermen, shadar-kai, githyanki and githzerai are all descendants of wildmen, who were initially adopted by their protoillithid patrons because they demonstrated admirable loyalty to the group. Fey have both apian and wildmen blood and were shaped by their exposure to elemental forces, whereas the disobedient wildmen who hid from their masters in the planes of Shadow, long before the treachery of Gith, eventually became the shadar-kai.
if I recall correctly, in the 1st ed Dungeoneers Survival Guide, it mentions the Drow eating their elderly when they have not enough food, just like baby spiders devouring their parents. It should be clear that Drow are not all drizzt with a profession change, they are trecherous and debauched at best.
The problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and...
View full commentThe problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and popular modern art of this century I think is a bad call.
I don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the...
View full commentI don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the word nymph came from a Greek word that meant "marriageable young woman," or "virgin," depending on the translation (I've seen it both ways). To that end, I think those should stay as they are, but my opinion is biased, and if they were included to have male versions, I would probably simply exclude them from my game. BUT, if they are included, I think they should be sort of like the maedar. There should be notable differences between the genders (females are lithe and graceful, males are strong and powerfully built? They are supposed to be the "ideal" of beauty, but also defenders of nature), and a difference in abilities. I'm also in favor of a variety of nymphs, however, like the Greek legends. Without male nymphs, you should explain how new, full blooded nymphs come into being. Is a nymph's daughter also a nymph, regardless of father (leaving room for inherited templates)?
As for the centaurs, only thing that bugged me was the exeption to them using their hooves as weapons. Charging centaur, dual wielding lances, with improved overrun. THAT is scary.
As for minotaurs, anything was playable in 3E, you just had to work around over inflated LA. The DM's I know worked with players wanting to play exotic characters. But I do like the two versions. Could we differentiate them with a new name, sub-race, etc? Feral Minotaurs (different from Savage Species)?
I don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures.... and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens...
View full commentI don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures....
and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens are most of the time of neutral aligment... only creature that have been tainted by the of pocket energi of the negative energi plane are evil (mostly undeads and some living tainted creature like Nightcrawlers)...
and were are the most interesting dragons of all time The Gem Dragons???? they are core dragon who have been neglected in 4 edition... Big Mistake i must say...
Move Shadow Dragon to Gem Dragon Family and call it Onyx dragon or something
and use mercuri dragon and steel dragon as metall dragon.. plus take back purple and brown ( brown was called yellow dragon in 2nd edition AD&D) and grey to chromatic dragon family...
I agree. Alignment has been part of the rules for a long time and should continue to be in the rules. And DMs have always ignored any rule that they didn't like so if some DM doesn't like alignment they don't have to use it, but the rest of us want it in the game.
Couldn't we just drop colour-coded dragons, please? And while we're at it, forget about fixed alignments for a whole species of intelligent creatures? Dragons encountered by the players should all be individuals, anyway. Dragons should become a toolbox: Provide a general template and pick and choose whatever abilities make sense for the single, unique dragon the party is about to encounter. Make dragons special, rather than just another random monster encounter.
One of the things that should be considered is the Idea of Multi Headed Dragons and that multi Headed Dragons possess a collective Intelligence. in essence all of the heads united together as one mind
View full comment
View full comment