Do you know the dark of whether Wizards is going to write Fiendish Codex that details the Yugoloths?
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
Fri, 2006-11-24 17:24
#1
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
Sat, 2006-11-25 07:34
#3
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
Dont get me started on the raw deal the loths have recieved in 3e. XXX
It's not just the Loths, it's every Outsider that isn't CE, LE, or LG. Not even Chaotic Good gets much notice; it's like they think it's an oxymoron or something. *mumble* *mumble* Frigging Moorcock. *mumble* *mumble*
Sat, 2006-11-25 10:51
#4
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
I can understand Wizards lack of focus on non-evil outsiders since they see the DnD 3e as focusing on dungeon crawling so they assume that everyone just wants more "monsters." I can also understand, from an emic perspective, why Yugoloths are not detailed as much as the Baatezu or Tanar'ri since the Yugoloths don't need mortal souls and thus do not interact with the material plane as much. But since the Fiendish Codexes are focusing more on the Fiends on their home planes as opposed to how they relate to the material plane, Fiendish Codex that details the Yugoloths is feasible. They'd have to overwork the 'loths' stats to put them on par with the baatezu and Tanar'ri; but the WotC seems to have no problem doing such things. And even if they don't rework the stats and leave the 'loths as pathetics as they are now by core rules, there are plenty of alternative stats and conversions online.
Sat, 2006-11-25 15:20
#5
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
I don't have a clue to be honest. I don't have any contacts with WotC. I've got some upcoming stuff of mine in Dragon, and I've consulted on something for Dungeon, that that's it. No web of spies snagging secrets for me in real life. Just a biologist who writes as a hobby because its fun.
And the 'loths being largely ignored (as well as Guardinals and Eladrin and modrons) is mostly because of design restrictions WotC had in place till relatively recently. At the time, anything that wasn't "core", was largely impossible to use in other products that didn't have them fully in that book in the first place. So feel free to use a pit fiend, but heck no you can't use an arcanaloth or a rilmani, because they're not in the 1st MM and we can't assume people will have books beyond the 'core' books so even if it makes perfect sense to use them, you can't.
Yugoloths and Modrons were originally going to be in the MM according to Monte Cook, but were left out due to page space concerns, and not wanting the book to be overwhelmed by outsiders compared to other monsters. The unfortunate side effect being that later authors were restricted in using much anything that wasn't in the MM.
So no 'loths in the BoVD, or much anywhere else in detail, and it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle: We won't write material about yugoloths/modrons/eladrin/guardinals because people don't think they're important, and people don't think they're important because we won't write anything about them.
Sad but true.
We'll see if things change in the future, but after the trainwreck that was the yugoloths in MMIV, it's not promising. That said, I might be able to add some stuff, even just little tidbits and winks and nods and one line namedrops, depending on how much of my stuff in Dragon 351 and 353 survives edits.
Sat, 2006-11-25 15:28
#6
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
Hands up, who thinks its time for a bit of PW intervention? Does anyone have a list of Eladrins, Yugoloths, Guardinals, Rilmani etc so that we good people here can start fleshing them out?
I dont know, would they have a place in any PS products currently in the making? Maybe a planar MM? Im just spitballing here, but would WotC be angry if we did a compilation of what they have already done and added in what they havent done?
My two
B
Edit: Anything but Modrons, which we already have. Would like to see the return of the Gehreleth too, but ive never been much of an expert :s I know we have some of my targets in the codex but maybe we can agree on out official stance with regards to creatures?
Sat, 2006-11-25 16:14
#7
Shemeshka, I call thee forth
Shemeska, I of course know you have no spies or what not, but because of your connection to Dragon magazine I assume you know more insider stuff than anyone else here (or at the very least you know more than me). The rest was just in good fun.
Barking Wilder, by fleshing out do you mean in regards to stats or background information? There are stats, many of them better than what was created by Wizards, all over the web; but if we want to flesh out their backgrounds and the sort I'd gladly be involved.
HAHAHA Funny joke. Seriously though, given that the primal force of undiluted evil on the planes (the loths) were left out of the Book of Vile Darkness entirely, I find it hard to believe that wizards are going to bother giving us a book full of them.
Dont get me started on the raw deal the loths have recieved in 3e. On the other hand, maybe someone from WotC actually cares enough about the history of the setting enough to give us as much detail on the Yugoloths as they have (some might say too much) on Tanar'ri and Baatezu.
Heres hoping. Wheres shemmy when you need her?
B
XXX