Is the Snarl an Elder Evil?

[bue52]

As stated on the title, I have just read the Elder Evil book, well the first two chapters actually, and I wonder if the Snarl can be considered as an Elder Evil. If it is, does this mean that if we go solely by D&D mechanics, Oots needs to be at epic level to eliminate the threat of the Snarl, of course, an epic level party evens the battlefield against Xykon, but that's for another thread.

[Mr. Scaly]

I think you could classify the Snarl as an Elder Evil, yes. You'll see in the book that there are all kinds, from demons and devils to simple incarnations of chaos. The origin doesn't seem to be as important as the overall alienness of the being, and the threat that it poses.

[pflare]

I don't think thew Snarl is an Elder Evil for a couple of reasons. First, it's not Evil, its only chaos. Its like having half of an alignment (or a 4E alignment). I don't think it even has intelligence or wants. And Ssecond, its even more powerful than any Elder Evil , it can actually kill Gods. Even epic level characters are just undone by its chaos.
If you had to group it into a category then yes it would probably fall under Elder Evil but I think it deserves its own category, a higher category.

[NerfTW]

NO.


The Snarl is a homebrew creature. Trying to cram it into an existing template is pointless. And we get one of these threads every week.

[bue52]

NO.


The Snarl is a homebrew creature. Trying to cram it into an existing template is pointless. And we get one of these threads every week.

Woah, I didn't expect such a strong response, I'm not trying to be a troll or anything like that, its just something I thought about after reading the book, I'm not thinking of conforming another person's original piece of work into another party's fictional universe.:smalleek: It was just something, I was contemplating, I doubt I can even start statting the Snarl, I know too little about D&D to do so, I have yet to reach the level the geekery thread actually deduces the stats of the characters.

I do admire how they can do it so quickly though.

[JT Jag]

The Snarl is not evil. It's the utter essence of chaotic neutral, existing only for the sake of unmaking things.

It is beyond an elder being, created at the dawn of time itself out of the frustration of bickering gods. It is the utter essence of divine anger, distilled into its purest form.

It's less of an elder evil, and more of a black hole, a blight on the universe itself.

[Aldrakan]

They did mention that it was growing "hateful" which could indicate malevolence. I mean it's made out of divine anger, I wouldn't assume it's necessarily neutral.
Mind you, the behavior we've seen from it in Azure City doesn't fit with the Order of the Scribble version, but that could be because the gates are holding it.
I'd call it an Elder Abomination, which I think I just made up. Pretty much the same, but carries greater connotations of it's alieness.

[Leliel]

Uh guys, an Elder Evil doesn't actually need to have the "evil" alignment. Admittedly, most do, but many don't.

This is most blatant in the form of the Leviathan.

A sentient monster formed out of pure chaos, the Leviathan wishes to return the earth to a primodial state, as it's nature dictates. And yet, it's a chaoic neutral being, neither evil nor good. It's just a leftover of creation with some bad side effects.

The only real qualification for the title-not the template-of Elder Evil is that the monster is powerful and will quite possibly destroy the world as we know it. Just those two, and it can start developing Signs of the Apocalypse (the Leviathan, for instance, is a sea creature, and thus it's awakening causes havoc with weather systems).

[Aldrakan]

Uh guys, an Elder Evil doesn't actually need to have the "evil" alignment. Admittedly, most do, but many don't.

Oh. Okay then yeah, no reason not to call it an Elder Evil. It seems to be a fairly generic term for "powerful old nasty thing we don't want around", which fits the Snarl perfectly.

[NerfTW]

That's what I can't stand. These "signs" and rituals that get attached, and then people start looking for what the "signs" are for the Snarl.

There are no signs. It's just a creature that destroys things. It's like asking if an asteroid heading for the planet is considered an "elder evil". No, it's just an asteroid that happens to be heading for the planet. It's not going to helpfully alert everyone by causing "signs" to appear. It's just going to hit the planet.

Elder evil is statting out a creature that shouldn't have stats. It's just a force of nature. It would be like statting out a tornado or an asteroid.

[Optimystik]

That's what I can't stand. These "signs" and rituals that get attached, and then people start looking for what the "signs" are for the Snarl.

There are no signs. It's just a creature that destroys things. It's like asking if an asteroid heading for the planet is considered an "elder evil". No, it's just an asteroid that happens to be heading for the planet. It's not going to helpfully alert everyone by causing "signs" to appear. It's just going to hit the planet.

Elder evil is statting out a creature that shouldn't have stats. It's just a force of nature. It would be like statting out a tornado or an asteroid.

The problem with this line of thought is that there is more to the Snarl (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html) than pure destruction. It's not a meteor, or a forest fire, or a volcano... it's sentient, and aware. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html) That will have numerous implications we can't foresee yet, but already its exhibiting odd behavior (such as not setting foot outside the open rifts) that neither the characters nor we can explain.

[Blue Ghost]

IMO, the Snarl is a perfect fit for an Elder Evil. Some of the Elder Evils listed in the book are at least as powerful as the gods (Pandorym, for instance). The Snarl probably wasn't designed with the Elder Evil mechanics in mind, though, so it most likely will not have a sign of any kind. But I do like the idea.

[SadisticFishing]

The Snarl didn't step through the holes in reality either. It just eats. Redcloak's explanation, at the moment, is the only one that makes sense - it's distracted.

The Snarl is undeniably Chaotic Evil. It hates. It kills everything. Et cetera.

[David Argall]

Well, since it is younger than most of the gods, it wouldn't qualify as elder evil, which is often described as those the gods have replaced.
It does fit the vague description of vague terrible off-stage power that could destroy everything if it is not stopped. But that just means we are entirely guessing about it.

[Zerter]

The simple answer is:

Of course.

If you found The Snarl (what we know about it anyway) in the book of elder evils you would have thought it was written for it. The Snarl does not just fit the description nicely, it fits the description perfectly.

[Woodsman]

The one thing you can argue the Snarl not being an Elder Evil is a lack of signs.

Elder Evils are not necessarily older than the gods; they are ancient, but some aren't that ancient. Some Elder Evils are perfectly capable of killing gods; one (I can't remember) is mentioned as actually killing gods. Some (like Atropus) not even the gods can stop. It's possible it requires an adventurer to stop the Snarl; god-killers are often designed for that purpose, and there's times where it goes against them when mortals challenge.

An Elder Evil is designed to challenge the gods and bring about the end of worlds or even existence. The Snarl (which I'm pretty damn sure is CE) did so in twenty-seven minutes. I think it qualifies.

[hamishspence]

Also, it predates the book somewhat. Though it might fit by coincidence.

The term Elder Evil is used pretty haphazardly- Lords of Madness used it for the abstract entities the aboleths are devoted to,

Champions of Ruin used it for very powerful outsiders like Dendar the Night Serpent and Kezef the Chaos Hound.

So, it doesn't necessarily have to have a Sign.

[Berserk Monk]

As stated on the title, I have just read the Elder Evil book, well the first two chapters actually, and I wonder if the Snarl can be considered as an Elder Evil. If it is, does this mean that if we go solely by D&D mechanics, Oots needs to be at epic level to eliminate the threat of the Snarl, of course, an epic level party evens the battlefield against Xykon, but that's for another thread.

It undid the entire Greek Pantheon in a couple of minutes. I think that qualifies it as something greater than an elder evil.

[Woodsman]

It undid the entire Greek Pantheon in a couple of minutes. I think that qualifies it as something greater than an elder evil.

Yeah, but everyone knows the Greek gods were a bunch of sis- *Smote by thunderbolt*

[Thanatosia]

I always considered the Snarl to fall into the catagory of "Abomination" as a creature type defined in the 3rd ed Epic Handbook. Abominations are unwanted offspring of Diefic power - and not neccisarily just born-progeny (like the mechanical construct one, forget its name - anaxiom?). I think its power level in general is probably in line with an Abomination, but this one has a special diety-slaying attribute as a consequence of its creation circumstances. If the OOTS all got to lv35+ or so, I think they could probably take it on in combat and defeat it (even the crayons of time directly implied it was far more effective at god-slaying then it would be in combat with very high-level mortals).

[Carteeg_Struve]

I'd actually argue that the Snarl is lawful. It will absolutely eliminate all. No exception. No way to argue against its point. No variation.

The Snarl has one law, and it's sticking to it: "Destroy Everything!"

[hamishspence]

Elder Evils are basically Abominations with Signs- they have all the traits of a basic Abomination.

[SadisticFishing]

I'd actually argue that the Snarl is lawful. It will absolutely eliminate all. No exception. No way to argue against its point. No variation.

The Snarl has one law, and it's sticking to it: "Destroy Everything!"

That's not what lawful means at all! Not even a little bit!

Otherwise EVERYTHING would be Lawful because they followed their own codes - even if their codes were "do random stuff".

Two-Face is not Lawful, and neither is the Snarl.

[Ozymandias9]

Otherwise EVERYTHING would be Lawful because they followed their own codes - even if their codes were "do random stuff".

Two-Face is not Lawful, and neither is the Snarl.

Actually, a personal code is an expressly supported flavor of lawful: the measure for that is whether or not the character actively thinks in terms of a consistent behavioral code and whether or not they are endeavoring to be true to that code.

It seems unlikely to me that the snarl's actions consist of a code. We have no indication as such. Reacting to a raw want to consume doesn't a code.

And it depends on who is writing Two-Face and when. The coin gimmick has been mostly dropped from the comics by a lot of authors. And when most use it, its used as a method of showing the struggle between the two warring personalities: the Harvey Dent personality can't prevent the Two-Face personality from carrying out those actions, but he can restrain him to the coin toss.

Regardless, Harvey Dent is clearly Lawful Good. But then again, maybe I'm biased. After all, I believe in Harvey Dent.

[Bibliomancer]

Regardless, Harvey Dent is clearly Lawful Good. But then again, maybe I'm biased. After all, I believe in Harvey Dent.

Sure. Harvey Dent is LG. Two-Face is CE, based on how society reacts to him (also, he's a psychotic murderer). The more interesting question would be what is Batman's alignment?

[Optimystik]

Sure. Harvey Dent is LG. Two-Face is CE, based on how society reacts to him (also, he's a psychotic murderer). The more interesting question would be what is Batman's alignment?

All of them:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g273/mushroom1307/batman-alignment.jpg

[Porthos]

All of them:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g273/mushroom1307/batman-alignment.jpg

Yes. But what if we didn't allow Frank Miller to write any sort of Batman comics? :smalltongue:

[Ancalagon]

All of them:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g273/mushroom1307/batman-alignment.jpg

No offense, but here's a readable version:

http://www.skynet.ie/~cheese/GsocStuff/Batman_alignment.jpg

[hamishspence]

Complete Scoundrel went with Lawful Good (Batman isn't above breaking minor laws, but he generally works to help the law.)

Probably closer to the Adam West end of the spectrum than the Micheal Keaton end.

[Porthos]

OFFTOPIC:

BTW, what's the story behind the chocolate one anyway? Is this a superdickery thing (i.e. taken out of context)? Or is it more like a Frank Miller Weirdness thing going on?

[Optimystik]

No offense,

None taken. :smallsmile:


OFFTOPIC:

BTW, what's the story behind the chocolate one anyway? Is this a superdickery thing (i.e. taken out of context)? Or is it more like a Frank Miller Weirdness thing going on?

Obviously, it was Batman's ice cream.

[veti]

The Snarl isn't "an" anything. It's unique. Just like every other creature. :smallwink:

As far as I can see, the "Elder Evil" idea is basically the same as the "Abomination" idea. They're both catch-all classifications for things that the D&D ruleset has difficulty coping with. (The first edition of "Deities & Demigods" contained stats for the "Cthulhu Mythos", which are probably the modern archetypes of these creatures, but there was always going to be a certain amount of difficulty in assigning WIS and CON scores to creatures like that. What is the AC of a star, anyway?)

I'd say the Snarl shouldn't have "stats" at all. You can't communicate with it, you can't hurt it, and whether any given spell is likely to affect it depends on just what the caster is trying to do with it.

[Mr. Scaly]

The thing about Elder Evils is that they're all so different. Elder Evil's describes Atropus in chapter 2 which is a planet sized undead moon of negative energy, then it goes to describe Kusk the Worm Lord, who was once actually mortal. There's no specific origin that they all share. So sure the Snarl was made by deific frustration. That's a perfectly reasonable birth for an elder evil.

[Ancalagon]

I'd say the Snarl shouldn't have "stats" at all. You can't communicate with it, you can't hurt it, and whether any given spell is likely to affect it depends on just what the caster is trying to do with it.

Some people are never happy until it has been categorised, named, labelled, defined, measured, and stamped - no matter if that makes sense or not. ;)

[Mr. Scaly]

I'd say the Snarl shouldn't have "stats" at all. You can't communicate with it, you can't hurt it, and whether any given spell is likely to affect it depends on just what the caster is trying to do with it.

Not hurting it is questionable. Shojo suspected that the gods were especially vulnerable to the Snarl because it was formed from deific frustration and that mortals of an equivalent level would stand a better chance.

[hamishspence]

Obviously, it was Batman's ice cream.

Personally I think Vampire-Batman in the Crimson Mists comic (especially in the last part of the 3 part series) epitomizes CE very strongly.

That was due to drinking The Joker's blood though.

[Thanatosia]

The Snarl isn't "an" anything. It's unique. Just like every other creature. :smallwink:

As far as I can see, the "Elder Evil" idea is basically the same as the "Abomination" idea. They're both catch-all classifications for things that the D&D ruleset has difficulty coping with. (The first edition of "Deities & Demigods" contained stats for the "Cthulhu Mythos", which are probably the modern archetypes of these creatures, but there was always going to be a certain amount of difficulty in assigning WIS and CON scores to creatures like that. What is the AC of a star, anyway?)

I'd say the Snarl shouldn't have "stats" at all. You can't communicate with it, you can't hurt it, and whether any given spell is likely to affect it depends on just what the caster is trying to do with it.
Abomination is hardly a catch-all term in D&D, its pretty specificaly defined - they are the unintentional and unwanted direct offspring of Dieties that retain some portion of the 'divine spark' of power, and can be birthed from their impulses as well as from sexual procreation. The Snarl clearly falls into that catagory.

I have no idea what the D&D classification of Elder Evil is, because I pretty much stoped somewhere between v3 and v3.5 and were not in any of my sourcebooks, but the beings of the C'thun mythos seem to be unrelated to conventional perceptions of dieties, and predate them from a time before time. The sourcebooks I have seem to adopt C'thun Mythos type entities as inhabitants of the "Far Planes", and are linked to the Alienist prestige class.

[Optimystik]

Personally I think Vampire-Batman in the Crimson Mists comic (especially in the last part of the 3 part series) epitomizes CE very strongly.

That was due to drinking The Joker's blood though.

Uh, squick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick) much? :smallyuk:

[Porthos]

Speaking of the Batman Ice Cream thing, as I thought it was a superdickery type Out of Context thing...

http://superdickery.com/index.php?view=article&catid=30%3Aframes-and-panels-index&id=788%3Abatman-hates-ice-cream&option=com_content&Itemid=24

Still want to know the actual context thou. :smallwink: Probably some stupid Joker Plot or sumthin'.

[Kish]

Not hard to guess, indeed. Poisoned (or explosive) ice cream, and he saved the life of the person he just hit, comes immediately to mind.

[Bibliomancer]

The Snarl isn't "an" anything. It's unique. Just like every other creature. :smallwink:

As far as I can see, the "Elder Evil" idea is basically the same as the "Abomination" idea. They're both catch-all classifications for things that the D&D ruleset has difficulty coping with. (The first edition of "Deities & Demigods" contained stats for the "Cthulhu Mythos", which are probably the modern archetypes of these creatures, but there was always going to be a certain amount of difficulty in assigning WIS and CON scores to creatures like that. What is the AC of a star, anyway?)

I'd say the Snarl shouldn't have "stats" at all. You can't communicate with it, you can't hurt it, and whether any given spell is likely to affect it depends on just what the caster is trying to do with it.

Star
AC: -∞
Hook:
It's a star. How can you miss?

[hamishspence]

Uh, squick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick) much? :smallyuk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_%26_Dracula:_Red_Rain

It was a bit disturbing. What really puzzles me was that it was in the kids to teenagers section of my local library- effectively they were treating it as PG-13.

[Aldrakan]

It was a bit disturbing. What really puzzles me was that it was in the kids to teenagers section of my local library- effectively they were treating it as PG-13.

I'm pretty sure people have done the same thing with Preacher. For a lot of people comic=kids stuff, and sadly this includes some librarians.

[Kish]

All I can think of when I see this thread title is, "Well, it's certainly not a younger evil."

[Woodsman]

From what I'm reading in the "Elder Evils" book, the Snarl seems to fit the title perfectly. A powerful, non-deific entity bent on destroying the world or irrevocably changing it for the worse.

[veti]

Star
AC: -∞
Hook:
It's a star. How can you miss?

Well, e.g., your weapon could melt before it gets within a billion miles of the surface. But I guess you could call that "DR" (1,000,000/-).

Even allowing for that, though - given enough range mods, a star does become quite hard to hit. Given a perfect (zero divergence) laser, most of us would still have quite a lot of difficulty hitting any given star in the sky. So the AC can't be quite as low as that...

[Cerrakoth]

Dunno if this is the right thread, but being fairly new to the forums, in terms of reading anything other than the comic update one. Has anyone considered the fact that because of the fact the snarl is sentient, the story might have a twist where it turns out he knew all 3(?) sides to this battle for the gates plans, and just simply turns around and flips two fingers up to them, doesnt allow himself to be controlled, and simply uses all 3 playing off against one another? Sorry for my ignorance.

[Thanatosia]

It's possible, but that seems far to deep-thinking for an entity that was essentialy clueless to an entire world being woven around it. I'm guessing mindless force of destruction.

[Thrax]

Yeah, Snarl (do we really need "the" there?) is most likely as sentient as your average flu virus. It just destroys stuff because it's what it exists for. Considering this is also motivation for most generic Orcs in DnD, Snarl must be chaotic evil, thus fulfils the "Elder Evil" description perfectly.

[Lupy]

The snarl is mindless, it destroys to eat. Or so I believe...

[The Extinguisher]

I don't think it's mindless. It seems to be presented as malevolent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html). If it was simply mindless, don't you think it would be trying to get out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) by now? Not to mention that something seems odd (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html) about it.

There's more to the Snarl than Shojo, Redcloak, The Dark One or any of the gods seem to know.

[AceOfFools]

That's what I can't stand. These "signs" and rituals that get attached, and then people start looking for what the "signs" are for the Snarl.

There are no signs. It's just a creature that destroys things. It's like asking if an asteroid heading for the planet is considered an "elder evil". No, it's just an asteroid that happens to be heading for the planet. It's not going to helpfully alert everyone by causing "signs" to appear. It's just going to hit the planet.

Elder evil is statting out a creature that shouldn't have stats. It's just a force of nature. It would be like statting out a tornado or an asteroid.

I'm reasonably certain DnD has rules for both tornadoes and asteroids. In a pinch, for 3/3.5 you can use the air elemental's alternate form for the former, and the falling object/distance to encounter rules for the latter.

I've not read whatever book the Elder Evils are in, but from the promo material WotC relased, the snarl hits everything. It has signs (the rifts themselves), and even rituals (the gates to seal the rifts and team evil's plan for them), associated with it.

I'm sure Rich didn't intend for the snarl to fit that mould as the snarl pre-dates the book by at least a year, but it Fitz.

[Tyrmatt]

My traditional definition of an Elder Evil is something that existed before the creation of the world, usually something that opposed creation in some way. So yes, the Snarl is in fact, a textbook Elder Evil. It's existence predates the current creation, it destroys established order from the Gods and it's got a bunch of crazed religious nuts who are either trying to contain it or release it. Rich basically hits every point right on the nose with it.

[Thrax]

I tell you why Snarl fits the bill so much.
Rich tried to make a Lovecraftian cosmic horror. Elder Evils were made as an imitation of a cosmic horror. That's why both things are so much identical.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Ofcourse! It's Curlythullu!

[Tyndmyr]

The Snarl didn't step through the holes in reality either. It just eats. Redcloak's explanation, at the moment, is the only one that makes sense - it's distracted.

The Snarl is undeniably Chaotic Evil. It hates. It kills everything. Et cetera.

The question is...distracted by WHAT?

I doubt the answer is good.

[The Giant]

Like the Snarl, let sleeping threads lie.

Closed for Thread Necromancy.