Café de Nuit

I was reading through the The definitive 3e RL Monster Catalogue/tiny terrors and realised i don't just use the creatures listed, but others that are not lised as well. In fact the only creatures i don't use are Kaiju, celestials, other positive and neutral outsiders (Kaiju i don't use largely because i haven't found a use as yet and the space required for them, at present only the only possible use i see for them is hinting at their existance as a dormant potential threat in ancient tablets and records).

Some of the more oddities i use are fiends, devils and dragons. I do use as unique creatures but they exist none the less.

So i wonder what creatures do you not use or include?

brothersale wrote:I was reading through the The definitive 3e RL Monster Catalogue/tiny terrors and realised i don't just use the creatures listed, but others that are not lised as well. In fact the only creatures i don't use are Kaiju, celestials, other positive and neutral outsiders (Kaiju i don't use largely because i haven't found a use as yet and the space required for them, at present only the only possible use i see for them is hinting at their existance as a dormant potential threat in ancient tablets and records).

Some of the more oddities i use are fiends, devils and dragons. I do use as unique creatures but they exist none the less.

So i wonder what creatures do you not use or include?

I use all of them. Expecially the good aligned ones. There is no Tarrasque, but I can't exclude 100% that an end campaign ( hight level one) might not involve something like that.

Definitely not Tarasque... but I will have to have a more extensive look (I am at work now...) also never Head Hunter. In general I prefer more traditional gothic monsters than really psychedelic ones, like those with many mouths or xorn...

But I still like Party Guy Otyugh!!!

Demons/Fiends. I dig the Gentleman Caller as a well-written and thought out mastermind villain but the idea of there being so darn many of them they warranted their own VRG never sat right with me.

It is true you will find the temptation of devils in gothic literature, but it rings trues when it is not a deal made with a devil, but rather the Devil (like in Faust). But there isn't just one in D&D so the whole things falls a bit flat--again in my own opinion.

Generally speaking I try to minimize rather than wholesale eliminate monsters- admittedly the Tarrasque is probably something I'd avoid using in almost all but the most specific of set-ups. In Ravenloftseque games I generally try to minimize the use of mid to high level extraplanar beings- the lower sort of fodder I can usually justify as creations of people's inner darkness or fabricated out of native spirits and elements of the land. However, the amount of extraplanar beings and their heavy roles in D&D makes it difficult to wholesale eliminating them- some I make as semi-real projections of ether controlled by other interests.

Before exclusion, I usually try to pursue a practice of inclusion of what I can justify in building context or immersion. Sometimes I'll use normally out of place or exotic monsters to suggest or foreshadow unusual circumstances. For example, gibbering mouthers in a case where I had somebody performing vile experiments on doppelgangers.

While I also tend toward gothic monsters (see JWM A-Z list), I do not put any monsters out of my list, with the right backstory, any monster can be in Ravenloft.

Heck, why not a Tarrasque too : cultists have summonend a Tarrasque that ravaged an island of terror. They are now trying to bring it to the Core, the PCs have to stop them. Voilà. Not all monsters have to be fought directly.

Another vote for party guy Otyugh, but make sure you hide the hard liquors, otherwise it will be a disaster!

For me, it depends on the themes I want to explore in the campaign or adventure. I've never really viewed Ravenloft as one hundred percent anything but a vehicle for Horror and the Weird. While I do like the worldbuild that it became, I can just as easily play it as a weekend in hell. Together it gives me creative flex (gave, as I don't DM anymore). All depends on the table, at the end of the day.

In my longest running campaign, which had an underlying theme of the corruptibility of humankind, I constantly asked myself the question "can a human NPC or NPCs convey the same evil as those represented by the monsters in X Monster Manual?". The PCs were enlisted soldiers in the Falkovnian army but were detatched from its societal evil by way of being sent out to work behind enemy lines in Darkon as a small but elite squad tasked with uncovering and eliminating Azalin's commanding officers (option to play other than evil characters/soldiers without standing out; dead drop intel reports would keep them at arm's length, and brief interactions with other similarly-placed agents would keep their actions generally a sliding neutral). The Kargat officers, while monsters in the classic sense, were treated more as unique NPCs/bosses/masterminds though, who were exploiting the human nature (failings) of its Kargatane ranks. There was enough evil to explore through war (being on the other side of the border the PCs would start to see things from the average/innocent Darkonian point of view; the whites and greys of the world), group and individual executive decision-making and consequence of action, and through the darker side of humanity (including their own). The Kargat handlers were targets for the PCs to lash out at (and violently confront/assassinate etc), but also mirrored their doubts and hopes (and despair) in regards to their individual goals and drives.

Short of it, there was no need to include the vast majority of Monster Manual creatures. So you could say that in that particular campaign most monsters (as defined by D&D) didn't exist.

Another campaign, another bunch of themes, and another representation of those themes through "monsters"...

Joël of the FoS wrote:Another vote for party guy Otyugh, but make sure you hide the hard liquors, otherwise it will be a disaster!

Ηe has great moves!

And he likes crashing parties, especially those on cruise ships...
Deep Rising (1998) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118956/

Five wrote:In my longest running campaign, which had an underlying theme of the corruptibility of humankind, I constantly asked myself the question "can a human PC or NPCs convey the same evil as those represented by the monsters in X Monster Manual?".

The whole thing sounds like a really interesting and good campaign.

Kender, halflings, anything that ends in -folk. Really unlikely any of stupider races from the books are going to show up, but those are three I’ll definitely not use.

Halfling are Canon in Ravenloft.

Mistmaster wrote:Halfling are Canon in Ravenloft.

You got me. I don’t actually do this, but if I did these wouldn’t make an appearance. I probably would let someone play a halfling if they wanted, but you won’t be meeting any halfling NPCs.

I guess someone doesn't like The Hobbit so much...

PS
Not even kender vampires?

Mephisto wrote:I guess someone doesn't like The Hobbit so much...

PS
Not even kender vampires?

LOL! Tolkien is the one place I think they actually work, but it was built for that.

Kender vampires sounds like something from a bad SNL skit.

I had some time to think about it more...
I m describing Ravenloft monsters (except one in the end who is now related to a Ravenloft domain) as there are many monsters from the various Monstrous Compediums I wouldn't use. If I had to mention non-Ravenloft monsters the list would be long, for instance I would not use one of the most emblematic mosnters in D&D the Beholder also that golem Ravenloft adventure with the beholder golem (Living Armor)... not for me.

2nd edition Madmen as a generic monster is bad, fortunately the two times they were included in official products they had different stats (Jean Tarascon and The Midnight Slasher). Except the Head Hunter which is not a bad idea per se, as the thought of a spider-like creature escaping the body of a PC (heh) would bring chills to a group, I personally prefer other PC body snatching monsters as the doppelganger and the plant of the same name. In the same category lies the Skin Thief. I like the idea but I would make it a unique individual not a generic monster. The Backwards Man and the Tentacle Rat are two more monsters I would probably not use, with the backwards man making an appearance only in a Hazlani wizard laboratory, and only if I had too, ctually I believe the tentacle attack is too much. Speacking of tentacles, the tentacle rat, is a monster I don't like as a whole and having it coming from Markovia also makes my stomach ache a bit, I would probably place that in Hazlan too, if I had to use it. Last but not least I would never use a Displacer Beast and it is one of the many reasons I don't like 5th edition Valachan. There are many 5th edition Ravenloft monsters I will add here from VRGtR as I believe I didn't mentioned in my VRGtR review, shall I begin?...

Body Taker Plant not because I don't like it but because I prefer the name and design of the Doppelganger Plant... Brain in a Jar again not because I don't like the concept but because there can be only one... Dullahan being a generic monster of the Headless Horseman makes the actual never-was-a-darklord-since-4th-edition villain sound... dull...
I will now go to more "exotic?" named monsters as the Necricor, with a name probably inspired by a black metal band, no it is not my cup of tea, I prefer demiliches than ancient god sludge. The Relentlesses...zzz seem as been taken out from Mad Max movie (the one with Tina Turner), there are people in this forum that don't like the idea of fiends in Ravenloft because of the demiplane's small size. While I understand their point of view I must say I actually really like Ravenloft fiends but not those Relentless Slasher's and Relentless Juggernauts, these are monsters that make the Demiplane overpopulated with fiends without any reason at all. Also I had an image of a Relentless Juggernaut fighting against Alice (in Wonderland), that is a really bad Mad Max trip.

The Star Spawn Emissary I believe is a reinstitution of Gwydion without the darklorship aspect and maybe also a lesser more fightable form, no comment to this except I prefer Gwydion. Speaking of no comment I will actually do that for the Unspeakable Horror because, well it is unspeakable...
The Ulmut Inquisitors and Osybus priests fall in my next unwanted category that of the VRGtR metaplot with all these amber prisons, I don't like the concept of defining the Dark Powers and that's it for me as well as more dark fantasy that the gothic horror I prefer (also Osy Bus is the name of the the public bus company in Athens... but then again since it's beginning Ravenloft was always good in making names that sound funny in Greek). What happens when a vampire has sex with a mosquito or for a better mental image, with a stirge? A Strigoi is born!!!!... using the Romanian word for vampire to describe this abomination is far-fetched to me although unfortunately true.

Now going to Swarm of Massive Limbs I can't help of having an image of one of these limb totems from the Hannibal series, which made my bowels move with disgust but did not inspire horror. Sometimes that which is less visible is more horrifying and vice versa which is the reason why slasher movies are more funny than horrifying (usually sexism is the only horrifying thing in most of them e.g. Sleepaway Camp) and for me it works the same with this monster, plain disgusting but not horrifying... pork-chops anyone?

And my list finishes with the Zombie Clot (maybe it's me), but the name sounds so funny it would never inspire fear to me if a fellow PC managed to make a successful monster legend (knowledge) skill roll and say this is a zombie... clot... I would probably giggle. The only thing that can inspire horror based on it's name is the sound of the word which is reminiscent to the disturbing "click" sound that small girl (Chrlie) from the Hereditary (2018) movie makes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYtN7IxJiqo

Although I remember seeing something resembling a zombie clot in a zombie movie (or series) recently (as an instantaneous attack) I still don't like it as a monster and I am not actually sure if it is one or if it is described as a zombie strategy. For that to have it assembled for a single massive attack I am OK but not as a moving hulking monster shouting "Straaaaaahd" instead of "Hulk smash". It's although still debatable, I am still not sure if I would have a powerful necromancer who has found ways to dictate the zombies how to make these attacks, but the mindless zombies attacking like that on their own without instructions, I doubt that. This is the difference between zombies in The Walking Dead Series and World War Z movie, as in the movie the zombies can coordinate and wreck havoc in Jerusalem (Juju-zombies perhaps?).

PS
Moor Men also not usable, they are a not really horrifying D&D generic monster who happened to be in a Ravenloft MC, I really don't see the point why they are included in Ravenloft.
Giff these hungry-hungry-hippo-faced humanoids would never be used by me unless if the PCs were trapped inside the Tome of Terror in a horror version of Babar the Elephant.
Dragons except Ebb and her boyfriend... and the Sorcerer King, Kalid-Ma of Kalidnay, although I think he never transformed into a dragon he just became sleepy and hasn't woken yet, I wonder has Thakok-An ever tried kissing him?...

Pizza wrote:

Mephisto wrote:I guess someone doesn't like The Hobbit so much...

PS
Not even kender vampires?

LOL! Tolkien is the one place I think they actually work, but it was built for that.

Kender vampires sounds like something from a bad SNL skit.

Kender vampires only exist in Sithicus and are the result of Soth experimenting on a small village of kender that appeared in the domain when it was formed. They can't leave Sithicus and die if they're force to.