See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.
How the heck does ultimate embodiment of ~All That Is Chaos~ translate into... Psychotic Frog?
Does anyone have any insight into that? Paizo guys? Anyone who might've read an article on the design of Slaads I missed?
I wonder if I can poke the R&D article-writer guys at Wizards to see if they have any info on it.
... I guess a psychotic frog would be pretty random the first time you met one.
Trust the Toad.
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.
How the heck does ultimate embodiment of ~All That Is Chaos~ translate into... Psychotic Frog?
Does anyone have any insight into that? Paizo guys? Anyone who might've read an article on the design of Slaads I missed?I wonder if I can poke the R&D article-writer guys at Wizards to see if they have any info on it.
... I guess a psychotic frog would be pretty random the first time you met one.
Its basically a throwback to earlier editions. I suspect that old time players love them most of the time. That said there was some kind of a frog fixation in the early years of the game. Frogs show up in adventures of every level far more then could possibly be attributed to random chance.
In fact I suspect one could - if one put their mind to it, run an entire campaign in which the players never met anything that was not a frog.
Blame the Brits -- they did the original Fiend Folio :P
BTW I love slaadi. Of course, I'm one of those "old players."
Its basically a throwback to earlier editions. I suspect that old time players love them most of the time. That said there was some kind of a frog fixation in the early years of the game. Frogs show up in adventures of every level far more then could possibly be attributed to random chance.
In fact I suspect one could - if one put their mind to it, run an entire campaign in which the players never met anything that was not a frog.
**
See, the thing is, all the frogs are semi-iconic for the game ...
one of the original "Creator" races was batrachian. So, all the frogs and frog-like creatures are 'carry-overs' or 'throw-backs' to that time.
makes a kind of sense when looked at in that light, eh?
Speaking as someone who's tried to walk down the street in Maryland after a rain, frogs ARE chaos.
But more to the point, it's not just D&D. Frogs and toads have been elements of myth for a long time, from cursed princes to the Plagues of the Pharoahs. It's not too hard to recognize a nearly subconscious opinion of frogs as being monstrous, gross, and just plain undesirable.
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.
Really? I don't. As I understand outsiders, their forms are all arbitrary creations of the planes that spawned them. I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
A subjective opinion - I'm sure the demons think a succubus' form is mighty fine. ;) A balor's form, while maybe not beautiful in our eyes, is certainly efficient for the purpose for which it was made - efficiency can be beautiful in its own way. :D
For the same reason the Sith need a dark lord when there's only ever TWO!
Just goes to show that if you put two people together, even totally chaotic people, one of them will try to boss around the other.
Re: the mini discussion concerning angels and demons. I like to think that these creatures take on forms, or have forms chosen, partly due to the beliefs of mortals. Mortals are at least partly responsible for the existence of gods in "standard" D&D, so I see at least some of that bleeding into outsiders (while at the same time, I consider outsiders more independent of mortals, being constructs of the objective planes and immutable by mortal opinion, whereas the followers of a deity can actually alter his nature).
As a rule, demons and devils have the forms they do because mortals find them horrific, and that accomplishes their "goals" more efficiently. At the same time, angels are... well, angelic because mortals feel that is good and beautiful. Whether this is caused by mortal belief (i.e., outsiders have no choice), or the outsiders actually choose to take on said forms to conform to mortal beliefs... more open to any individual DM's opinion, but I kind of like the former.
Drifting further afield, does anyone else get annoyed by the fact that there are inevitables, formians, and modrons (but they don't seem to have been carried to 3.x; if so, where are they?) on the side of pure Law, but only slaad on the side of pure Chaos? Seems backwards of the way it should be.
That said, the form of the slaadi have always confused me, too. Gasp! That's why they are ultimate chaos! Because choosing a frog form is completely random and confusing! AHA! We solved it. :P
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.Really? I don't. As I understand outsiders, their forms are all arbitrary creations of the planes that spawned them. I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
Ah, see, that's the thing. As I understand it at least, it's not arbitrary, it's anthropomorphic. Outsiders are representations of what we associate with goodliness (angels,) or evil (fiends,) or law & order (ie, machines and ants.) It may be uncomfortably stereotypical, that beauty is good and ugly is evil, and grounded in a stereotypical set of standards of beauty, but there you have it. It makes more sense when you put it in the context of the D&D concept (since 2nd ed at least,) that the core outsiders rise from uplifted mortal souls. From a practical standpoint, I suppose one could say Evil is about hurting people, and the more fearsome, intimidating, and nasty a fiend is, the better suited it is to harming, torturing, and emotionally scarring someone. And the inverse for good, with protection and nurturing being the goal.
It still doesn't explain why D&D humans (players and characters) associate chaos with angry frogs, but the whole plague & poison folklore mentioned by Fletch and the others does make a certain sense. And frogs are pretty cool. I don't have my 1st Ed Fiend Folio handy, does anyone else? Were Slaadi always associated with Limbo?
Of course, all of this talk about crazy amphibians is making me think about the manga character Sgt. Frog. As military as he's supposed to be, he's pretty chaotic, heh.
Were Slaadi always associated with Limbo?
Yes :)
Director of Sales
|
I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
[threadjack]This just made me think of South Park's personification of God. Still makes me laugh.
Carry on, then...[/threadjack]
I like Slaads, but I agree it was a weird decision to make the representatives of Chaos.
Heck, from what I can remember, Slaads weren't exactly spawned by Limbo, were they? They come from the Spawning Stone which is located in Limbo...who knows where the stone came from?
As for the Slaad Lords, they don't LEAD the slaads, per say. They're just extremely powerful and can cow other slaads into slaves because of their power. The way slaads work is they always strive to be better than all the other slaads, occasionally fighting amongs each other to rise above the rest in terms of power.
At least, that's from what I remember about slaadi from Planescape. I might have some it a bit wrong.
Which leads to my next hope...I REALLY want to see the "Slaad Lords" article make a return to the pages of Dragon Magazine before the issue dies out. I hope they can do that cause then I'd just have to be stuck pleading with WotC to release it on their DI.
I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?[threadjack]This just made me think of South Park's personification of God. Still makes me laugh.
Carry on, then...[/threadjack]
Gotta love the timeless philosophizing of Matt Stone and Trey Parker!
Anyway, I think that a shapeshifter form would be best suited to beings of ultimate chaos. And none of this 'reverts to its true form when killed' BS, because they wouldn't have true forms...yeah, I like it. Like the Chaos Beast, except not evil. Come to think of it, the slaadi might as well join the tanar'ri for all their supposed neutrality on the good-evil axis.
I seem to remember reading designer comments to the effect that their original description of the Slaadi were too nebulous for the artists, and, when pushed, they came up with a demon description that was only "vaguely frog-like." Apparently the designers were as shocked and puzzled as anyone when the Slaadi came back as giant demon frogs.
Truth be told, I can't remember exactly where I found this information, but for some reason it might have something to do with the D&D videogame Demon Stone, where the Slaadi feature prominently.
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.Really? I don't. As I understand outsiders, their forms are all arbitrary creations of the planes that spawned them. I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
Ultimate evil could be just as seductivily beautiful as well.
Gotta love the timeless philosophizing of Matt Stone and Trey Parker!Anyway, I think that a shapeshifter form would be best suited to beings of ultimate chaos. And none of this 'reverts to its true form when killed' BS, because they wouldn't have true forms...yeah, I like it. Like the Chaos Beast, except not evil. Come to think of it, the slaadi might as well join the tanar'ri for all their supposed neutrality on the good-evil axis.
Yeah, don't get me wrong. I like, Slaad, but that's something else that kind of bugs me about them. Their "raaarr, kill everything" mindset, and using intelligent beings to reproduce kind of mindset seems kind of... I dunno, evil.
Other monsters who do stuff like that, like the Xill or Mind Flayers, are considered malevolent. Is it because the Slaad don't play with or enslave their people-food-spawn-fodder?
And if you were truly chaotic, wouldn't you *want* to play with your food?
And if you were truly chaotic, wouldn't you *want* to play with your food?
Sure, if it were spagetti. If it were a person, that would put you on a VERY slippery slope toward evil. But maybe that's just my idea of 'chaotic' not being the same as 'insane'.
My idea of a truly chaotic race is one in which every member has a different motivation and goal, though none of which would be overly concerned with altruism or manipulation. Sure, some would try to bully others around but they wouldn't have that common slaad mentality 'I'd just as soon eat your face than look at it'.
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.Really? I don't. As I understand outsiders, their forms are all arbitrary creations of the planes that spawned them. I mean really, what about ultimate goodness demands a flawlessly beautiful form?
Human nature to believe that beautiful and goodness go hand and hand. My niece in kindergarten just got the lesson pounded into her head that 'pretty women' are still strangers and all warnings regarding strangers qualify even if it is a pretty female.
Now the deeper question - why is the cosmology of D&D based around human stereotypes? Hell is a humanistic view of hell - not a Halfling, dwarven or even elven view of hell. Not a hell that ignores the mortals but a very human hell.
I seem to remember reading designer comments to the effect that their original description of the Slaadi were too nebulous for the artists, and, when pushed, they came up with a demon description that was only "vaguely frog-like." Apparently the designers were as shocked and puzzled as anyone when the Slaadi came back as giant demon frogs.
Truth be told, I can't remember exactly where I found this information, but for some reason it might have something to do with the D&D videogame Demon Stone, where the Slaadi feature prominently.
I'll echo you on this. I recall reading the same thing. Big frogs was not exactly the original vision. I certianly never read about this in the video game Demon Stone - I've never heard of that game before.
A little computer glitch makes me fear this might turn into a double post, but here goes. My apologies if it turns up twice.
Re: the mini discussion concerning angels and demons. I like to think that these creatures take on forms, or have forms chosen, partly due to the beliefs of mortals. Mortals are at least partly responsible for the existence of gods in "standard" D&D, so I see at least some of that bleeding into outsiders.
Could you go into more detail about this? It sounds like you're suggesting that the D&D gods are spawned from the faith of their followers. With mortal-ascended gods like Vecna, Kyuss, St. Cuthbert, Iuz, and Mayaheine, I'm thinking the core setting has a very Mystara-like hero-->god program.
Now the deeper question - why is the cosmology of D&D based around human stereotypes? Hell is a humanistic view of hell - not a Halfling, dwarven or even elven view of hell. Not a hell that ignores the mortals but a very human hell.
There's a causality issue here that sprouts from the difference between real-world religion and fantasy world religion. While on good ol' Earth, our ancestors were projecting their visions of good and beauty onto their angels and such, the fantasy world populace has concrete, pre-existing examples of good and evil outsiders that don't need mortal input. In fact, you could even argue one step further and say that, in a fantasy world, mortal concepts of beauty could be influenced by the appearance of angels rather than the other way around.
I imagine that, after a few visits by angels and demons, prehistoric fantasy world people would start to think "that being is good, people that look like her are really attractive" or "that being ate my wife, it's appearance scares the pazuzu out of me."
To take that to Jeremy's deeper question, the causality of a fantasy world doesn't have a Hell shaped by the beliefs of humans, but the beliefs of humans (and dwarves and elves and svirfneblin and flumphs) shaped by the really existing Hell.
|
Now the deeper question - why is the cosmology of D&D based around human stereotypes?
I suspect that more than 80% of those who play D&D are humans (I could be wrong), so basing the game around human stereotypes seems a reasonable marketing decision. Now, surely we would all prefer a more diverse demographic, but WotC has not had notable success in selling to the lizardman community. Perhaps when they finally put out the long-awaited waterproof edition of D&D?
Well, lets consider a few things: Sendarm and Ygorl the slaad lords put limiters on the Spawning Stone after it made them, because they were afraid it might spawn out something even stronger than the two of them combined. They specifically restricted Slaadi "births" to the subraces we have now. Perhaps they had one of those egotistical moments of "in my own image" going on?
Planescape did the best job to date of illustrating the Slaad mindset. Especially in one of the chapters on the Abyss, where the chapter is narrated by a blue slaad named Xanost. Slaad don't seem to think before they talk; conversation with one is like those "stream of conciousness" games that some professors put you through.
Another book, this one actually talking about slaad, mentions that slaad are so self-centered and concerned with strength that a slaad will not aid another slaad; he'll wait his turn to try and defeat the opponent on his own, without assistance. In this manner, a fighter capable of defeating one slaad without injury could theoretically defeat a thousand, as they would line up to fight him rather than jumping him en masse.
As far as the implant reproduction cycle goes, it is true that seems a bit wierd, but I put it to the Slaad Lords manipulation of the Spawning Stone. Slaad can implant each other, and as most slaad do not have planar travel capability, each other is who they'll generally implant. This both limits their numbers and makes the potential mutations of further generations predictable, both things the Slaad Lords want in their paranoid bid to maintain their place as "King of the Hill".
Me, when I want wierder slaad, I start using the Hordling tables, or roll for a material off of one of my treasure generation charts, plus 1d8. The d8 is for how many "eggs" that slaad carries, and the material is for what prompts the laying of an egg. Made for a great scene when the party fighter shieldbashed with an admantine shield, and a little slimy frog fetus popped out of the slaad he was fighting. Never seen an expression like that before.
Now the deeper question - why is the cosmology of D&D based around human stereotypes? Hell is a humanistic view of hell - not a Halfling, dwarven or even elven view of hell. Not a hell that ignores the mortals but a very human hell.
Simple. Humans are the ones playing the game, and thus things based on "humanistic" perceptions, whether it be planes or anything else, allow us to identify with/understand any given thing, be it the Seven Mounting Heavens, the Nine Hells, or anything else.
EDIT- Doug said is even better than me. That's what I get for replying before reading the whole thread. :)
A little computer glitch makes me fear this might turn into a double post, but here goes. My apologies if it turns up twice.
Re: the mini discussion concerning angels and demons. I like to think that these creatures take on forms, or have forms chosen, partly due to the beliefs of mortals. Mortals are at least partly responsible for the existence of gods in "standard" D&D, so I see at least some of that bleeding into outsiders.Could you go into more detail about this? It sounds like you're suggesting that the D&D gods are spawned from the faith of their followers. With mortal-ascended gods like Vecna, Kyuss, St. Cuthbert, Iuz, and Mayaheine, I'm thinking the core setting has a very Mystara-like hero-->god program.
Now the deeper question - why is the cosmology of D&D based around human stereotypes? Hell is a humanistic view of hell - not a Halfling, dwarven or even elven view of hell. Not a hell that ignores the mortals but a very human hell.There's a causality issue here that sprouts from the difference between real-world religion and fantasy world religion. While on good ol' Earth, our ancestors were projecting their visions of good and beauty onto their angels and such, the fantasy world populace has concrete, pre-existing examples of good and evil outsiders that don't need mortal input. In fact, you could even argue one step further and say that, in a fantasy world, mortal concepts of beauty could be influenced by the appearance of angels rather than the other way around.
I imagine that, after a few visits by angels and demons, prehistoric fantasy world people would start to think "that being is good, people that look like her are really attractive" or "that being ate my wife, it's appearance scares the pazuzu out of me."
To take that to Jeremy's deeper question, the causality of a fantasy world doesn't have a Hell shaped by the beliefs of humans, but the beliefs of humans (and dwarves and elves and svirfneblin and...
I also like your comment as an in-game perspective of why Hell is based on "humanistic" ideals (or vice versa by your reasoning).
Yes, there are some ascended gods in the core D&D pantheon. But, as I udnerstand it, and it's at least true in the FR if not all of D&D, gods are tied intimitely to their worshippers. Now, the common lore is less clear on whether gods are actually created by their followers, but the deities do "live" on the faith power and energy supplied by the faithful. The ideas and opinions of the faithful can, then, influence the personality/portfolio of a deity.
As an irrelevant aside, in my homebrew, I've been toying with the idea of making gods even more "real," as in actual living beings (stealing from the Greek and just calling them Titans, but Elder Titans since they're certainly bigger than the MM creature). Such beings would be less "prone" to being reshaped by mortal ideals.
Back to general D&D, I like to think that outsiders are less linked with "faith energy" as a whole, although they do arise from philosopical energies and souls in some regards.
[I imagine that, after a few visits by angels and demons, prehistoric fantasy world people would start to think "that being is good, people that look like her are really attractive" or "that being ate my wife, it's appearance scares the pazuzu out of me."
To take that to Jeremy's deeper question, the causality of a fantasy world doesn't have a Hell shaped by the beliefs of humans, but the beliefs of humans (and dwarves and elves and...
Well, the Tanar'ri and Batezuu of the D&D core are (or were originally) pretty definitively drawn from mortal souls, at least. The Fiendish Codexes make this abundantly clear, as well as the Demonicon of Jiggy-wiv-it, Dagon edition, in Dragon #349.
It's a pretty fair, symmetrical guess that there are other outsiders that arise in the same way, even if it hasn't been explicitely laid out.
Tyrants of the Nine Hells also points out that there's a street in Hell (God Street, natch,) where Lawful Evil dieties appear when they're either believed into existence or (if they were mortal,) they accumulate enough hero-worship.
... say, I wonder if I can be accused of thread-jacking in my own thread. n.n;
|
I don't know, frogs seem pretty chaotic to me. They start out like fish, then morph into jumping lizards. They seem to deform fairly often in real life - extra legs, weird heads, etc. I'm okay crazy frogs representing Limbo. But I like the idea of them not having full stability and randomly changing mid encounter, sprouting extra arms, changing color, etc.
D&D core are (or were originally) pretty definitively
Of course, when I say originally, I mean, within the IC context of the current interpretation of the history of the D&D-iverse.
See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.
How the heck does ultimate embodiment of ~All That Is Chaos~ translate into... Psychotic Frog?
Does anyone have any insight into that? Paizo guys? Anyone who might've read an article on the design of Slaads I missed?I wonder if I can poke the R&D article-writer guys at Wizards to see if they have any info on it.
... I guess a psychotic frog would be pretty random the first time you met one.
In the current Golarion canon, it would appear that Slaad have been replaced by the Protean critters. I think those make much better sense, given what I've read of them to this point.
No no, the answer to why frog creatures are the pinnacle of chaos is much simpler than all the explanations given thus far ...
lick a frog and things can get pretty freakin' chaotic ;)
most likely NSFW, btw ... just thought you should know ... though it probably would have been more chaotic not to tell you ... oh well, too late I guess.
Now, who's up for a good, ol' fashioned egging? Anyone?
chaos is related to change.
changing form is one way of having change.
tadpoles change to frogs.
frogs are an embodiment of change.
and unlike catapillars and butterflies, they don't go from ugly to pretty (flawed to perfect), they go from ugly to ugly.
My recollection is that Slaadi originated from the AD&D fiend folio (and presumably from fiend factory the 'send in your monsters to be published' portion of white dwarf magazine* before that) and were sent in by a reader (Charles Stross?)- the same guy who designed githyanki, githzerai and death knights. I think they were originally a race of beings that had Limbo as their home plane- not necessarily the archetypal chaos creature just a race which resided on limbo- there were two detailed slaad lords ygorl? and ssendam? (which I thought was madness backwards and maybe glory mixed up?).
I think the reason that they became the archetypal chaos creature is because they were the only detailed race of creatures from limbo (except for one off mindless abberation type monsters and the githzerai who were planar refugees) so they inherited the mantle. Over the course of 2nd edition and planescape they remained the most interesting chaos based creature and stuff like the spawning stone added to their 'race history' hence they have held the mantle ever since.
so really they are not the archetypal race from Limbo just the most well known- maybe they are the ones that most like to travel the planes?
*white dwarf magazine was a british magazine about rpg's in general before becoming devoted to warhammer, it mostly had AD&D stuff- it had some great stuff in it's day.
In the current Golarion canon, it would appear that Slaad have been replaced by the Protean critters. I think those make much better sense, given what I've read of them to this point.See, Modrons I understand, demons, angels, devils, etc, I get.
How the heck does ultimate embodiment of ~All That Is Chaos~ translate into... Psychotic Frog?
Does anyone have any insight into that? Paizo guys? Anyone who might've read an article on the design of Slaads I missed?I wonder if I can poke the R&D article-writer guys at Wizards to see if they have any info on it.
... I guess a psychotic frog would be pretty random the first time you met one.
Protein croutons? Arrrggh! Stop messing with perfection.
Come to think of it, the slaadi might as well join the tanar'ri for all their supposed neutrality on the good-evil axis.
According to the 1e Fiend Folio, slaadi can be summoned with a cacodemon spell. Summoning a slaad master incurs a 5% risk of the named slaad manifesting, swallowing you alive, and removing you to Limbo.
Viva la raza Slaad!
You know, despite the fact we are supposed to be the embodiment of Chaos, we are really organized. Think about. WE ARE COLOR CODED!!! We a have a heirarchy! We follow a system that allows us to procreate(catch something alive, then egg it).
You ever hear the old myth that from Chaos sprang Order? Sladdi are not creatures of Chaos, we are creatures of Ordered Chaos!!!
