Canonfire! Forums-viewtopic-Monsters "of Fearun" on Oerth

Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:52 pm Monsters "of Fearun" on Oerth

Hi,

I was compiling a list of monsters presented in Monsters of Faerun that are present (or even born) on Oerth.

For now, I concluded there are communities of these monsters on Oerth (or, in the case of outsiders, that can be found in the Flanaess):

Aaracokra
Abishai
Beholderkin and beholder magi
Black unicorn
Dragon, brown
Dragon, deep
Dragon, shadow
Dragon, fang
Bulliwug
Cloaker lord
Crawling claw
Curst
Dark tree
Firenewt
Giant strider
Gibberling
Green warden
leucrotta
Myrlochar
Quaggoth
Siv
Wemic
Yochlol

Can you tell me if there are species not native on Oerth in the list?

I am in doubt about the following:
Shalarin
Stinger
Pterafolk
Meazel
Hybsil
Fog giant
Alaghi
Asabi

Can you help me and tell me if "officilally" these races are present on Oerth?

Thanks in advance! ;)

Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:26 pm Re: Monsters "of Fearun" on Oerth

Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:19 am

Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:23 am

Whatever works for you! I have used monsters from many other sources including the Tome of Horrors I, and Tome of Horrors II. I have also extensively used Forgotten Realms UNDERDARK (whick with the exception of a few noticable areas) works very well in the Under Oerth IMO. I tend to be a tradionalist when it comes to these things, so personally I don't uses creatures that are too "funky."

I don't know much about the particulars of the monsters fron Faerun, but with a little work I think many of them could probably be used on Oerth.

................................Omote
FPQ
_________________
Prince Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Castles and Crusades Society

Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:49 am

Recently, I had the good fortune to find a lot of 3E Forgotten Realms products offered for sale at less than 50% of the cover price. I purchased them. Looking the books over, I noted how much of the material was Realms in name only, meaning it could have been set anywhere. I think Monsters of Faerun fits this bill. Even the identifiably Realms monsters seem to have only limited backstories that tie them to the Realms. With perhaps a very few exceptions, I think monsters are fungible between campaign settings.

As a broad generalization, I think any monster and any spell can be used in any setting without much need to "justify" it. I don't think spells and monsters are truly setting specific.

A different question arises, I think, with respect to classes or prestige classes. For example, there are no Red Wizards in Greyhawk. They are a fixture of the Forgotten Realms. But how difficult is it to imagine that the Scarlet Brotherhood might not have a wizardly arm of "Red Wizards." Some "conversion" is necessary with respect to backstory, certainly, but I don't think there is a mechanical problem.

As a broad generalization, I think any class or prestige class can be used in any setting with only a moderate need to "justify" it. Such justification would only amount to cleaning up the backstory to fit the setting, in this case Greyhawk.

A third question arises with respect to setting specific deities and associated classes. For example, Mystra, the Forgotten Realms deity of magic, placed in Greyhawk would raise some immediate concerns and questions. But what about Auril, Realms goddess of the cold? In Forstburn, a "generic" product that has been specifically mentioned in the Greyhawk Land of Black Ice adventure in a recent Dungeon article, Auril is listed as a goddess of the "Frostfell" as is Telchur etc.

Ranging further afield on this topic, demi-human deities have been used across settings on a fairly regular basis. So have demon lords. So human deities are different than demi-human deities or demon lords why? Don't they just need a bit of backstory adjustment, like monsters?

As a broad generalization, I think deities, particularly more minor ones, can be used in any setting with only a minor to moderate need to justify them.

Lastly, we come again to canon. "Is it canon?" "What does canon say?" I think these kinds of questions are a type of "green-eye shade" gaming that runs contrary to imagination and creativity.

Unless we are to agree that canon helps to define a setting in terms so meaningful and important that violating the canon, or operating without the clear agreement of canon, means you are violating, or doing violence to, the setting, questions of canon are unimportant beyond a curiosity factor.

IMO canon should be a point of departure for the imagination, not an end. When we ask, "Is it canon?" "What does canon say?" We are asking a question of sharply limited value IMO.

If we must adhere to canon or use canon as a necessary precursor to our own imaginings, then several results seem to be implied:

(1) New players without access to all the old canon resources are screwed. I recoil in revulsion at any such suggestion.

(2) New players without access to all the old canon resources must constantly be asking those with access, "What does canon say?" I find such a state a poor one to place anyone in and dull beyond imagining to have to read. Yet, looking at this site and Wizards, many, many questions fall squarely in this category. New players are reduced to supplicants at the feet of older players with greater canon resources or those players who have purchased all the old source material. I can't imagine new players sticking around in such permanent state knowledge servitude.

(3) Everyone, knowledgeable of canon or ignorant, must await new wisdom to drip from the lips of Eric Mona and those he choses to see published. Nothing against these worthies but I would again recoil at such idolatry. Yet, again, we see it here and at Wizards. It is worse, however, for the Ebberon fans who seem entirely willing bend their necks at Keith Baker's word or in anticipation of it. What is it about gamers, who are supposedly intelligent and imaginative, that sees them bowing to authority figures only lately fans themselves and breathlessly panting for a word from one of these authority figures. Then again, I don't get the fuss over Paris Hilton either.

Coming back around, rather than asking "Is it canon?" I offer that the better statement would be "Here is how I see this fitting into Greyhawk."

I find myself now months into my aquaintainance with online fandom coming to despise canon as the opiate of the masses, where once I was entirely reconciled and supportive of it.

And this raises the ultimate canon question, I think - Does canon define and differientiate campaign setting? Without canon are Greyhawk and the Realms the same?

Certainly, consistency with prescedent or canon has value. If the sun rises in the east today, it would be jarring to find it said to rise in the west tommorrow. But that is an obvious and cheaply made point. Not every factoid is akin to where the sun rises.

Is Greyhawk nothing but a collection of canon factoids? I think not. I think Greyhawk is defined by - (1) certain very large scale facts or canon imprints; (2) geography as it relates to the interaction, present, past and future between the given peoples and nationstates; and (3) a unique "feel" or approach to fantasy roleplaying (much like Conan stories are different than Lankhmar stories that are different than Elric stories that are all different from LotR or the Wheel of Time etc.).

My two cents,

GVD
_________________
GVD

Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:13 am

most of your initial list plus
Stingers (manscorpions)
Meazel
Hybsil
Fog giant
Alaghi

are all 1-2e monsters that have been found on Oerth, either listed in products or on encounter tables.

as has been previously noted Curst, Siv, Brown dragons, fang dragons, Shalarin and Asabi each have strong ties to the Forgotten Realms setting, and while you could certainly use them in greyhawk if you wanted to, they have no historical or canonical references that I know of in material pertaining to Oerth.

Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:54 pm

Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:24 pm

I personaly own a copy of every FR product (gaming related at least, I do not have all of the novels), and I use stuff from the newer (3.x) FR stuff in my greyhawk games all the time... I also own plenty of Ravenloft products from 2e, and use ideas at least from them on occasion, some birthright and mystara stuff, and nearly all of the greyhawk stuff. Hell in my game I use spells, feats, magic items, monsters etc. from any source that I have access to, but I always try to put what ever I use into the context of the World that I am DMing.

The creatures I mentioned above have very strong ties to the FR setting, created specifically for that setting with historical background and reasons for them to exist strongly tied to that world (perhaps not fully related in MoF, but definatly in thier prior appearences).

that being the case it would be harder to use them in a greyhawk game simply because you would have to redo all of tha stuff for greyhawk (unless of course you don't care about any sort of internal consistancy, some people don't, but I try very hard to go for a suspension of disbelief among my players, I think it makes it funner all around).

note that I do use Fang and Brown dragons in my greyhawk, with brown dragons living in the sea of dust, and fang dragons scattered across various areas of hills and forests.

however I do not use Curst for a couple of reasons, one is that thier origen is strongly tied to the Time of troubles, which greyhawk never went through. (the other is that they are a broken monster by 3.x rules, they were poorly written in 3.0, and were not fixed with the 3.5 update).

most everybody that responded put something like "use what ever works for you" someplace in thier post, and then went on to talk about what has officialy been seen in the WoG, I think that is fitting since that is what the initial post asked about.

finaly GVD, concerning canon... when many people talk about the same thing (in this case the world of greyhawk) and each of those people are doing thier own thing in relation to that thing (in this case running thier own WoG games)... canon is realy the only point of reference that we have to relate to one another.

If I started babling away about the "Scarlet Spellsters of the Thilvanot" nobody would know that I am talking about a PrC based upon the red wizard PrC from the FRCS.

Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:48 am

Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:30 am

CW,

In Monsters of Faerun, every monster comes with a "generic" history and a Realms specific notation at the end of each monster entry. It is, thus, entirely possible to divorce any of these monsters from the Realms, even if that is where they first saw the light of day.

You made note of the Curst as connected to the Time of Troubles. That is the Realms specific entry. The generic entry has Curst as the result of a Bestow Curse spell and a Wish or Miracle. I'll grant you that the generic description is bland and farfetched but the point is that the Curst is not inherently tied to the Realms by the presentation.

That said, I can see that, if you are or were a big Realms fan, and remember the Curst vividly, then moving them from the Realms could be a problem for you.

I don't have this issue and the only monster I find problematic in the Monsters of Faerun is the Phaerim and that because they are described as, and look like, "10-12-foot-tall-windsocks." To me, this is a monster which inspires all the awe and dread of the Flumph. I find it problematic because it is a dumb monster, not because it is a Realms monster.

Again, I think the focus is better placed on utility than on canon. Asking if these monsters are canon, to me, misses the point and illustrates a concern for form over substance. Is it a cool monster - is the all together better and more productive question I think.

Jakob,

I understand what you are saying and I agree about "feel." The feel of Greyhawk is very important IMO. The "feel' is, however, in no reliable way inherently connected to canon. There are lots of "canon" sources that do not "feel" like Greyhawk to me. Rose Estes, Childs Play, Gargoyles, funny Castle Greyhawk are too easy examples. I'll use Valley of the Mage by Jean Rabe. It is not usually on everyone's list of horrible Greyhawk products but I find it appallingly bad, worse because it stands as the most definitive treatment of the Valley of the Mage to yet see print. It is a cool idea gone terribly wrong by an author who obviously had to "read up " on Greyhawk and didn't do a very good job, compounded by an editor who obviously didn't even "read up" on Greyhawk. But it is canon. Yet, it doesn't "feel" like Greyhawk to me.

So, canon does not equal Greyhawk feel. IMO.

As you are writing a netbook, "presence in past modules/adventures/sourcebooks" should not be your lodestar. Cool stuff should be, as you want people to read what you are going to the trouble of creating. You need to hook your audience and cool stuff will do so far more than canon stuff. When I read Topic articles, for example, I look for cool stuff. Canon wonks generally write plodding stuff because they allow canon to fetter them too much. Canon need not be a fetter but it can too easily become the be-all-to-end-all, an end in itself. The best material, IMO, blends canon with big doses of original, non-canon, material.

When you say you wanted creatures that actually "LIVE" in the Flanaess, I think you are off on the wrong track. As noted above, practically any creature can live in the Flanaess, straight away or with a little work. The better question is whether any creature under consideration would be neat to see in the Flanaess and whether you can find a creative way to bring them in.

Canon is too readily a passage to wonkish irrelevance and dullness. This need not be the case but it is too easy to see canon as the sum total of acceptible expression.

IMO

GVD
_________________
GVD