Fizban's retcon to the draconic pantheon in lore has had me thinking about this. For those who don't know, it's been stated the only Bahamut, Tiamat, and Sardior are actually dragon gods, while other dragon gods are stated to just be Greatwyrms. However, being that the book was written by Fizban, it's possible he was trying to redirect faith from other dragon gods to himself. After all, why would dragon gods suddenly be considered not actually gods?
This also has me thinking about Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. If you read the preface, you'll know that the book was originally written by both Mordenkainen and Bigby, than stolen by the Yugoloth Shemeshka, and "preserved" by Mordenkainen's apprentice Qort, before making it back to Mordenkainen. So, multiple people could have affected the contents of the book. And have you ever noticed that the whole chapter on fiends doesn't include anything on Yugoloths? There's a reason Yugoloths try to assassinate Mordenkainen in Descent into Avernus, by the way...
There's probably more I can add here later. Just want to see what you guys think.
It's a clever "save face" option, both for people who get their lore mixed up, and for people who need to shoot down metagaming at their table.
It hurts the out-of-game historians a bit, I'm sure, but ultimately these books are game materials first and foremost. I don't mind the lore of the game being fuzzy, if it means smoother gameplay, and in my experience it does.
WotC's take on lore and canon is pretty clearly stated to embrace vagueries. I never really got the idea that lore immersion = some sort of coherrent orthodoxy. Rather than provide cosmological stemwinder of a foundation, I think lore is better used as inspiration. It can be addressed or seen by DMs as a "go by" for world building. Like I was on Usenet in the 90s and the only thing canon integrity seemed to really spawn are needless fights. I mean drop into the Story and Lore section and see how a lot of fun can be had with the willingness to derivative or even deviant from "lore." Creativity isn't recitation. Why am I on this soapbox? Ahem. Excuse me.
I'm sorta tickled that the dragon echoes bit and the "prime materiaiity" of dragons sorta resonates with what I (and others) are sorta doing with their dragons anyway. I don't think this notion was ever part of D&D canon, but I see it and the multiversal thing as a way to encourage players to feel more liberated in how they play the game. It's literally all in good fun.
Lastly, just to be fair to MTOF: it isn't a chapter of Fiends, it's a chapter on the Blood War focusing on the factions actually responsible for it. The Yugoloths I think get a fair treatment in 5e as well as the rest of the Fiends and denizens of the lower planes, but it was an overview of the war and Demon and Devil's differences (because the MM didn't do it enough, I guess). You could have the Yuggoloths agenda as part of the Blood War, but I think they're best off as a planar wild card.
All the way back to 2nd edition Volo's books were meant to be written as if player characters could purchase in game, which is why there were multiple Volo's guides to such and such.
Lastly, just to be fair to MTOF: it isn't a chapter of Fiends, it's a chapter on the Blood War focusing on the factions actually responsible for it. The Yugoloths I think get a fair treatment in 5e as well as the rest of the Fiends and denizens of the lower planes, but it was an overview of the war and Demon and Devil's differences (because the MM didn't do it enough, I guess). You could have the Yuggoloths agenda as part of the Blood War, but I think they're best off as a planar wild card.
Eh. I don't think Yugoloths are covered super well in 5e. I mean, in previous editions, we've had Yugoloth lords with unique stat blocks. Also, the Yugoloths certainly are a part of the Blood War, and it's definitely worth diving into their role.
Lastly, just to be fair to MTOF: it isn't a chapter of Fiends, it's a chapter on the Blood War focusing on the factions actually responsible for it. The Yugoloths I think get a fair treatment in 5e as well as the rest of the Fiends and denizens of the lower planes, but it was an overview of the war and Demon and Devil's differences (because the MM didn't do it enough, I guess). You could have the Yuggoloths agenda as part of the Blood War, but I think they're best off as a planar wild card.
Eh. I don't think Yugoloths are covered super well in 5e. I mean, in previous editions, we've had Yugoloth lords with unique stat blocks. Also, the Yugoloths certainly are a part of the Blood War, and it's definitely worth diving into their role.
But according to you, it seems apparent the Yuggoloths edited the book. Again, it's probably for the best 5e is leaning hard into "unreliable narration" it frees up their creatives when working on adventures (which for most tables will be self contained campaigns, so why chain it to "deep lore"). I'm also pretty certain WotC endorses the practice of folks who really want to do a deep dive into the dustbin of D&D "continuity" diving into the realms of fan support to "established lore" (which, worst case boosts DMsGuild sales). This thread reminds me of something I wrote a week or so back regarding reactions to changes in Drow lore:
Basically, while spelljamming around the universe, the aggressive widow's peaked and power 'stached Drow rockers came upon the oracle of Burger King, wherein they learned the mantra of "Have It Your Way." There has been much less conflict among the Drow, all who call themselves Drow, since this revelation. But when that opportunistic gossip Salvatore published this revelation, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst some elements within the Game Players. Even talk of underground games played in "purity" resistance to this heresy. Thus began the Little Regarded Wars.
Thanks for the hook, folks, I can run with this Whopper from here.
Lore "history" is great for self-referential moments that can be appreciated by long time players and readers, but aren't essential, like Thac0 the Clown, or the recurring obelisks of 5e, or sunderings. It just needn't and shouldn't be essential to game play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fizban's retcon to the draconic pantheon in lore has had me thinking about this. For those who don't know, it's been stated the only Bahamut, Tiamat, and Sardior are actually dragon gods, while other dragon gods are stated to just be Greatwyrms. However, being that the book was written by Fizban, it's possible he was trying to redirect faith from other dragon gods to himself. After all, why would dragon gods suddenly be considered not actually gods?
This also has me thinking about Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. If you read the preface, you'll know that the book was originally written by both Mordenkainen and Bigby, than stolen by the Yugoloth Shemeshka, and "preserved" by Mordenkainen's apprentice Qort, before making it back to Mordenkainen. So, multiple people could have affected the contents of the book. And have you ever noticed that the whole chapter on fiends doesn't include anything on Yugoloths? There's a reason Yugoloths try to assassinate Mordenkainen in Descent into Avernus, by the way...
There's probably more I can add here later. Just want to see what you guys think.
It's a clever "save face" option, both for people who get their lore mixed up, and for people who need to shoot down metagaming at their table.
It hurts the out-of-game historians a bit, I'm sure, but ultimately these books are game materials first and foremost. I don't mind the lore of the game being fuzzy, if it means smoother gameplay, and in my experience it does.
WotC's take on lore and canon is pretty clearly stated to embrace vagueries. I never really got the idea that lore immersion = some sort of coherrent orthodoxy. Rather than provide cosmological stemwinder of a foundation, I think lore is better used as inspiration. It can be addressed or seen by DMs as a "go by" for world building. Like I was on Usenet in the 90s and the only thing canon integrity seemed to really spawn are needless fights. I mean drop into the Story and Lore section and see how a lot of fun can be had with the willingness to derivative or even deviant from "lore." Creativity isn't recitation. Why am I on this soapbox? Ahem. Excuse me.
I'm sorta tickled that the dragon echoes bit and the "prime materiaiity" of dragons sorta resonates with what I (and others) are sorta doing with their dragons anyway. I don't think this notion was ever part of D&D canon, but I see it and the multiversal thing as a way to encourage players to feel more liberated in how they play the game. It's literally all in good fun.
Lastly, just to be fair to MTOF: it isn't a chapter of Fiends, it's a chapter on the Blood War focusing on the factions actually responsible for it. The Yugoloths I think get a fair treatment in 5e as well as the rest of the Fiends and denizens of the lower planes, but it was an overview of the war and Demon and Devil's differences (because the MM didn't do it enough, I guess). You could have the Yuggoloths agenda as part of the Blood War, but I think they're best off as a planar wild card.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
All the way back to 2nd edition Volo's books were meant to be written as if player characters could purchase in game, which is why there were multiple Volo's guides to such and such.
Eh. I don't think Yugoloths are covered super well in 5e. I mean, in previous editions, we've had Yugoloth lords with unique stat blocks. Also, the Yugoloths certainly are a part of the Blood War, and it's definitely worth diving into their role.
But according to you, it seems apparent the Yuggoloths edited the book. Again, it's probably for the best 5e is leaning hard into "unreliable narration" it frees up their creatives when working on adventures (which for most tables will be self contained campaigns, so why chain it to "deep lore"). I'm also pretty certain WotC endorses the practice of folks who really want to do a deep dive into the
dustbinof D&D "continuity" diving into the realms of fan support to "established lore" (which, worst case boosts DMsGuild sales). This thread reminds me of something I wrote a week or so back regarding reactions to changes in Drow lore:Lore "history" is great for self-referential moments that can be appreciated by long time players and readers, but aren't essential, like Thac0 the Clown, or the recurring obelisks of 5e, or sunderings. It just needn't and shouldn't be essential to game play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.