Let's Read The Monster Manual II: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Fight Them

[DerKommissar]

Excellent review of the modron!


My thought on them is, that they are task driven and when their task is war they are all out...
I imagine warfare against them like the great wars trenchwarfare: extensively planned technology tested in the field for the first time and always trying to adapt it for overkill. Machinised war. Walking into certain death because this is what you were built for back in mechanus. Basically fighting against a possibly endless chain of soldiers, each when he dies is reproduced to fit the task of defeating the enemy better and better, resulting in a fast evolution... but at the same time not able to think outside the box, almost to think at all. Thats not your job...

Together with slaadi my favored outsiders; and those two are at war with each other. Bloodwar is intersting, but a bit same same to me, the modron slaad conflict is where it clashes IMO

Keep up the good work, will do an entry when work is less taxing :)

[Unoriginal]

I imagine warfare against them like the great wars trenchwarfare: extensively planned technology tested in the field for the first time and always trying to adapt it for overkill.

Modrons are borderline incapable of adaptation, though, let alone of innovation.

Also, they're not the kind to do battlefield tests with something unreliable.

[Regitnui]

Modrons are borderline incapable of adaptation, though, let alone of innovation.

Also, they're not the kind to do battlefield tests with something unreliable.

Which means it has to be tested somewhere. Perhaps the modrons pick up innovations from the Material, then place it through several hundred cycles of testing before the mortal inventor is even satisfied enough to show it to close family. Hence why the modrons are more advanced than humans without being innovators.

[DerKommissar]

Of course, one modron got one task they are build for and I don’t see why that task cannot be changed with the next generation of modrons.

And the part about the field testing: i should have rather said „applied“. As logic leads you only so far and we had perfectly logical technical solutions to problems which nevertheless interacted in an odd manner when brought to use.

Anyways, just my idea of the modrons to have them less goofy „minions“...

About the mummy, why does D&D seem to always use the egyptian mummy trope? Mummys all around the world...

[War_lord]

About the mummy, why does D&D seem to always use the egyptian mummy trope? Mummys all around the world...

Same reason they use Gothic Horror Vampires, because that's what's recognizable.

[DerKommissar]

Same reason they use Gothic Horror Vampires, because that's what's recognizable.

Was my guess as well, but it strongly evokes a specific setting - i find it hard to use them in a medival themed setting e.g., though i think the mummy is a rather original type of undead in the group of undead in D&D, so its a bit of a pity.

But thats just really a minor complaint...

[War_lord]

Was my guess as well, but it strongly evokes a specific setting - i find it hard to use them in a medival themed setting

I don't see why it's hard to use, D&D has always been a mashup of disparate elements.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't see why it's hard to use, D&D has always been a mashup of disparate elements.

And unabashedly, intentionally so. Expecting strong thematic coherence from stock D&D is like expecting sedate behavior from a coked-up ferret. And there ain't anything wrong with that, IMO. You can impose coherence and thematics, but at the cost of not using (or changing) large swaths of material. It's all presented so that you can run the kind of monsters you want, but there's no expectation that all of those are in any one setting (or in any one play area of one setting).

[DerKommissar]

I don't see why it's hard to use, D&D has always been a mashup of disparate elements.

Thats a good point. I sometimes forget the obvious...

[Regitnui]

If you want plausible medieval mummies, you could always have them be bog bodies, preserved in peat. Note they wouldn't have the bandages on, though. That could be a great curveball for your players.

[TrinculoLives]

Yeah, and you can reflavour a Mummy Lord as the bog body of a former chieftain or king.

[the_brazenburn]

If you want plausible medieval mummies, you could always have them be bog bodies, preserved in peat. Note they wouldn't have the bandages on, though. That could be a great curveball for your players.

This was referenced in my review. Look at the hooks section.

[Millstone85]

Together with slaadi my favored outsiders; and those two are at war with each other. Bloodwar is intersting, but a bit same same to me, the modron slaad conflict is where it clashes IMO

The way 5e tells the story of the Spawning Stone (MM p274), it looks like Primus is very chill about the whole affair. Even though the slaadi "wiped out every last modron enclave in Limbo" and continue to "loathe modrons and attack them on sight", Primus "either doesn't perceive the slaadi as threats or chooses to ignore them". My guess is that the full extent of their war thereafter is whenever the Great Modron March goes through Limbo.

This makes sense to me. I see the Upper Planes as where Law and Chaos try to coexist, the Middle Planes (?) as where they mostly ignore each other, and the Lower Planes as where they are in full conflict.

Also, the Spawning Stone still does its job at imposing some level of order in Limbo, being responsible for the mind having power on it, so I can imagine Primus going "Oh well, good enough".

[Regitnui]

Also, the Spawning Stone still does its job at imposing some level of order in Limbo, being responsible for the mind having power on it, so I can imagine Primus going "Oh well, good enough".

I can see Primus as the sort of being that's content to "plug the leak" rather than try to rebuild the swimming pool. After all, he's got eternity to play with, and the Stone might make it so that his modrons can simply march right through Limbo by believing that they can't be attacked; because Your Mind Makes It Real, they can't be.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

1. You are correct about the ritual. I meant that there is no detail about what "dark gods" specifically create mummies.

They probably left that open so you can paste in setting specific dark gods that fit, wherever you set your mummy encounter. Faerun happens to have imported Egyptian gods in Mulhorandi, so you're probably looking at Set or Anubis there but in other settings you might have to use a different god.

It's similar to my complaints about the mind flayers, really.

[Regitnui]

They probably left that open so you can paste in setting specific dark gods that fit, wherever you set your mummy encounter. Faerun happens to have imported Egyptian gods in Mulhorandi, so you're probably looking at Set or Anubis there but in other settings you might have to use a different god.

It's similar to my complaints about the mind flayers, really.

Eberron has the Blood of Vol, a number of whose higher clergy are undead of various shapes, including (at least) one mummy/lord. Pick a faith with any reason to preserve their elders and its possible they'll make mummies.

[Requilac]

They probably left that open so you can paste in setting specific dark gods that fit, wherever you set your mummy encounter. Faerun happens to have imported Egyptian gods in Mulhorandi, so you're probably looking at Set or Anubis there but in other settings you might have to use a different god.

Sorry if I am being a bit of a pedant here, but I doubt Anubis would be willing to grant people undeath, or even immortality for that matter. His entire job is to bring people to the afterlife, it is kind of counter intuitive if he is allowing people to cheat death. I think he has a similar complex to Kelemvor in that regard. Just because one of your domains is death does not necessarily mean your domain is undeath too. As for set, from what I know of him I can see him doing that, but my knowledge is limited.

What I find interesting about the ritual is that it mentions that "dark" gods are the creatures that do it. It is quite a specific word to use. They didn't use a synonym for "evil", they more or less used a synonym for "grim". This makes me curios as to whether they were refering to evil gods such as Asmodeus or just edgy gods like Tyr (bad example, but it is the only one I could think of). It makes me believe that perhaps there might neutral, or even good, mummies out there. I would imagine them being good quest-givers. If the PCs do not kill it on sight that is.

[Unoriginal]

What I find interesting about the ritual is that it mentions that "dark" gods are the creatures that do it. It is quite a specific word to use. They didn't use a synonym for "evil", they more or less used a synonym for "grim". This makes me curios as to whether they were refering to evil gods such as Asmodeus or just edgy gods like Tyr (bad example, but it is the only one I could think of). It makes me believe that perhaps there might neutral, or even good, mummies out there. I would imagine them being good quest-givers. If the PCs do not kill it on sight that is.

No, they used "dark" to mean "evil". Like in "dark deeds", "dark magic" and others.

Dark doesn't inherently mean evil, true, but pretending that the intended meaning in the context of the Mummy entry is not "evil"/"malevolent" does not work.

Or to put it differently: they're pretty clear about the dark.

[Requilac]

No, they used "dark" to mean "evil". Like in "dark deeds", "dark magic" and others.

Dark doesn't inherently mean evil, true, but pretending that the intended meaning in the context of the Mummy entry is not "evil"/"malevolent" does not work.

Or to put it differently: they're pretty clear about the dark.

What makes you believe that they used dark to mean evil? It was not clear to me. What particular quote made you think that? I was reading through the entry and honestly couldn't find anything that evil about them. Or you know, more evil than 90% of the modern human population. Perhaps they are a little too vengeful for their own good, but at worst that makes them neutral. They are by no means saints, but calling them any more evil than what the average soldier would do is quite a stretch. I am not exactly good with picking up what is not directly said though. Is there some part I am missing or some subtle message I did not get? I am rather confused by your previous statement.

[Unoriginal]

What makes you believe that they used dark to mean evil? It was not clear to me. What particular quote made you think that? I was reading through the entry and honestly couldn't find anything that evil about them. Or you know, more evil than 90% of the modern human population. Perhaps they are a little too vengeful for their own good, but at worst that makes them neutral. They are by no means saints, but calling them any more evil than what the average soldier would do is quite a stretch. I am not exactly good with picking up what is not directly said though. Is there some part I am missing or some subtle message I did not get? I am rather confused by your previous statement.

"Once deceased, an individual has no say in whether or not its body is made into a mummy. Some mummies were powerful individuals who displeased a high priest or pharaoh, or who committed crimes of treason, adultery, or murder. As punishment, they were cursed with eternal undeath, embalmed, mummified, and sealed away. Other times, mummies acting as tomb guardians are created from slaves put to death specifically to serve a greater purpose."

If any part of your actions include eternally enslaving people, forbidding them access to the afterlife, including as an arbitrary punishment or as a prolonging of someone's enslavement in life, you're not bloody neutral.

[Requilac]

"Once deceased, an individual has no say in whether or not its body is made into a mummy. Some mummies were powerful individuals who displeased a high priest or pharaoh, or who committed crimes of treason, adultery, or murder. As punishment, they were cursed with eternal undeath, embalmed, mummified, and sealed away. Other times, mummies acting as tomb guardians are created from slaves put to death specifically to serve a greater purpose."

If any part of your actions include eternally enslaving people, forbidding them access to the afterlife, including as an arbitrary punishment or as a prolonging of someone's enslavement in life, you're not bloody neutral.

I believe that doing such things should indeed by an evil action too, but WotC disagrees and The PHB says otherwise. At the end of the PHB in the pantheons appendix Zeus is listed as neutral, and what he did to Prometheus wasn’t any better than creating a mummy really. If a god that condemns someone to eternal torture and deprivez them of the afterlife just because they defied them can be neutral, than why can’t a god eternally enslave enslave someone and deprive them of the afterlife as an arbitrary punishment?

I wish you were right Unoriginal, but the evidence claims otherwise.

[Unoriginal]

I believe that doing such things should indeed by an evil action too, but WotC disagrees and The PHB says otherwise.

No they don't.

At the end of the PHB in the pantheons appendix Zeus is listed as neutral, and what he did to Prometheus wasn’t any better than creating a mummy really. If a god that condemns someone to eternal torture and deprivez them of the afterlife just because they defied them can be neutral, than why can’t a god eternally enslave enslave someone and deprive them of the afterlife as an arbitrary punishment?

First, D&D Zeus is not Greek Mythology Zeus, just like Marvel Thor isn't Norse Mythology Thor. You'll note that D&D Hades is evil, while Greek Myth Hades isn't. You can assume the two entities only share some similarities and the basic concepts.

Second, trapping souls for eternity has consistently been portrayed as evil in 5e.

[Requilac]

First, D&D Zeus is not Greek Mythology Zeus, just like Marvel Thor isn't Norse Mythology Thor. You'll note that D&D Hades is evil, while Greek Myth Hades isn't. You can assume the two entities only share some similarities and the basic concepts.

What makes you say that the D&D Zeus is different from the greek mythology Zeus? The first paragraph in that appendix does say that the pantheism is the book “ include deities that are most appropriate for use in a game, divorced from their historical context in the real world and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game“. But that only claims that they are not the same from a historical stand point, it never specifically states that the mythology itself is any different. unless of course certain mythological events explain historical events, then those are factored out, but the story of Prometheus does not fall under that category . What you are saying is a reasonable assumption, but not one with any definitive proof. To me it seems like it is a safe idea to extrapolate, but not one you can regard as the whole truth.

And I am fairly sure that they just put the evil stamp on Hades because a lot of the manifestations of his power are spooky scary, and they just wanted to maintain consistency in the concept of “darkness=evil”.

Second, trapping souls for eternity has consistently been portrayed as evil in 5e.

What about the wall of the faithless? Kelemvor, a good deity, still maintains that monstrosity.

[Unoriginal]

What makes you say that the D&D Zeus is different from the greek mythology Zeus? The first paragraph in that appendix does say that the pantheism is the book “ include deities that are most appropriate for use in a game, divorced from their historical context in the real world and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game“. But that only claims that they are not the same from a historical stand point, it never specifically states that the mythology itself is any different. unless of course certain mythological events explain historical events, then those are factored out, but the story of Prometheus does not fall under that category .

Yes it does. The punishment of Prometheus might be a myth, but all myths exists because of the historical context they were thought in.

That Zeus could do that kind of things without being considered a petty monster is part of the Ancient Greek historical context, and depends on their conception of rulership and law. As we remove the historical context, D&D Zeus has to be considerably more "PC" to be neutral.

And I am fairly sure that they just put the evil stamp on Hades because a lot of the manifestations of his power are spooky scary, and they just wanted to maintain consistency in the concept of “darkness=evil”.

So you're saying that a "dark" deity was made evil for D&D, because they wanted to be consistent with the concept of “darkness=evil”?

...

Just going to put this here:

What makes you believe that they used dark to mean evil?

If you see the issue in your argument.

What about the wall of the faithless? Kelemvor, a good deity, still maintains that monstrosity.

The Wall is an afterlife, as horrible as it is, and 5e's SCAG indicates only the worst persons go there, if they happen to be faithless too. Otherwise they'd go to others horrible afterlives.

[Regitnui]

I believe that doing such things should indeed by an evil action too, but WotC disagrees and The PHB says otherwise. At the end of the PHB in the pantheons appendix Zeus is listed as neutral, and what he did to Prometheus wasn’t any better than creating a mummy really. If a god that condemns someone to eternal torture and deprivez them of the afterlife just because they defied them can be neutral, than why can’t a god eternally enslave enslave someone and deprive them of the afterlife as an arbitrary punishment?

I wish you were right Unoriginal, but the evidence claims otherwise.

I'm going to step into the alingment debate and point out that Neutral people can do Evil things. They can also do Good things. That's why they're neutral, after all. Zeus can doom Prometheus to eternal suffering (evil) and trap Typhon under a mountain (good). Hence, Neutral.

[Requilac]

Yes it does. The punishment of Prometheus might be a myth, but all myths exists because of the historical context they were thought in.

That Zeus could do that kind of things without being considered a petty monster is part of the Ancient Greek historical context, and depends on their conception of rulership and law. As we remove the historical context, D&D Zeus has to be considerably more "PC" to be neutral.

If we strip away the entirety of the historical context and mythological events like you are saying, than what we have left is not Zues at all, it is just a random god with an unoriginal name. Unless you are stating that that was the whole purpose of the pantheons listed in the PHB then. If that is the case, than it kind of invalidates the whole purpose of including the pantheons in the first place if the gods listed there didn’t do anything that their real life counterparts did. If we disregard everything that Zeus did, than it’s not Zeus anymore.

So you're saying that a "dark" deity was made evil for D&D, because they wanted to be consistent with the concept of “darkness=evil”?

I will admit that I could have worded that better, but I was mentioning two different meanings of darkness. When I mentioned that “dark” gods does not mean they are necessarily evil i was meaning gods that deal with grim and sad subjects, such as death, are not inherently evil. When I mentioned “dark” in the context of hades, I was referring to the fact he harnessed “dark” powers such as necromantic magic, not so much as his actual personality traits.

An undertaker and a necromancer are both pretty dark people, though not for the same reasons. The undertaker is dark because he is dealing with grim and depressing problems, the necromancer is dark because he is manifesting spooky scary powers.

The Wall is an afterlife, as horrible as it is, and 5e's SCAG indicates only the worst persons go there, if they happen to be faithless too. Otherwise they'd go to others horrible afterlives.

That still does not invalidate my point. Being stuck in the wall is still as torturous if not even more so than being a mummy, even if it is technically an afterlife.

[Requilac]

I have derailed everything and started another one of those symptomatic alignment debates, haven’t I? I am sorry everyone, I didn’t mean to do that. I thought that everyone would agree with my post and the second I got challenged for it I argued about it because I couldn’t forsake my own pride. If I am being honest, I really don’t know what I am talking about all that well. I am at best a new player and my knowledge of what alignment means only extends to the brief sentences lined up in the PHB and the endless debates ongoing in this forum. Instead of trying to argue in good faith I simply shielded myself behind rules-lawyering tactics. @Unoriginal, this isn’t your fault, this is mine. After all these months lurking on this forum I still don’t know any better than to create petty alignment debates. I really don’t have any idea whether you are right or wrong, but I decided to argue anyway out of immaturity and petty pride. Everything I say I can’t help but feel is meaningless and unfounded. Please forgive me for this. I have lost track of what I was saying and can’t even recognize what I am doing anymore. The only thing I can bring to this arguement now is wild speculation and withered claims. I have derailed this thread completely with a foolish fight just to simply feed my own immense sense of self-esteem. I will not argue this anymore, and even if I tried I would go nowhere. I am sorry everyone I should have known better. And I am sorry Unoriginal for wasting your time and frustrating you.

[Unoriginal]

If we disregard everything that Zeus did, than it’s not Zeus anymore.

Again, the same way that Marvel Thor isn't Norse Mythology Thor.

I will admit that I could have worded that better, but I was mentioning two different meanings of darkness. When I mentioned that “dark” gods does not mean they are necessarily evil i was meaning gods that deal with grim and sad subjects, such as death, are not inherently evil. When I mentioned “dark” in the context of hades, I was referring to the fact he harnessed “dark” powers such as necromantic magic, not so much as his actual personality traits.

So your argument is that they made Hades the god of death evil because he uses "dark" powers such as necromantic magic (which is in itself arguable if you go by the mythological Hades), but that there is no indication that the gods of death or dark gods who use/let their priests harness necromantic magic to create Mummies are evil?

[Requilac]

So your argument is that they made Hades the god of death evil because he uses "dark" powers such as necromantic magic (which is in itself arguable if you go by the mythological Hades), but that there is no indication that the gods of death or dark gods who use/let their priests harness necromantic magic to create Mummies are evil?

I am guessing you missed this post then?

I have derailed everything and started another one of those symptomatic alignment debates, haven’t I? I am sorry everyone, I didn’t mean to do that. I thought that everyone would agree with my post and the second I got challenged for it I argued about it because I couldn’t forsake my own pride. If I am being honest, I really don’t know what I am talking about all that well. I am at best a new player and my knowledge of what alignment means only extends to the brief sentences lined up in the PHB and the endless debates ongoing in this forum. Instead of trying to argue in good faith I simply shielded myself behind rules-lawyering tactics. @Unoriginal, this isn’t your fault, this is mine. After all these months lurking on this forum I still don’t know any better than to create petty alignment debates. I really don’t have any idea whether you are right or wrong, but I decided to argue anyway out of immaturity and petty pride. Everything I say I can’t help but feel is meaningless and unfounded. Please forgive me for this. I have lost track of what I was saying and can’t even recognize what I am doing anymore. The only thing I can bring to this arguement now is wild speculation and withered claims. I have derailed this thread completely with a foolish fight just to simply feed my own immense sense of self-esteem. I will not argue this anymore, and even if I tried I would go nowhere. I am sorry everyone I should have known better. And I am sorry Unoriginal for wasting your time and frustrating you.

[Unoriginal]

I have derailed everything and started another one of those symptomatic alignment debates, haven’t I? I am sorry everyone, I didn’t mean to do that. I thought that everyone would agree with my post and the second I got challenged for it I argued about it because I couldn’t forsake my own pride. If I am being honest, I really don’t know what I am talking about all that well. I am at best a new player and my knowledge of what alignment means only extends to the brief sentences lined up in the PHB and the endless debates ongoing in this forum. Instead of trying to argue in good faith I simply shielded myself behind rules-lawyering tactics. @Unoriginal, this isn’t your fault, this is mine. After all these months lurking on this forum I still don’t know any better than to create petty alignment debates. I really don’t have any idea whether you are right or wrong, but I decided to argue anyway out of immaturity and petty pride. Everything I say I can’t help but feel is meaningless and unfounded. Please forgive me for this. I have lost track of what I was saying and can’t even recognize what I am doing anymore. The only thing I can bring to this arguement now is wild speculation and withered claims. I have derailed this thread completely with a foolish fight just to simply feed my own immense sense of self-esteem. I will not argue this anymore, and even if I tried I would go nowhere. I am sorry everyone I should have known better. And I am sorry Unoriginal for wasting your time and frustrating you.

Don't worry, Requilac. You haven't frustrated me, nor have I gotten into anything I didn't want.

Your post was fine, and your response appropriate.