Talk:Cyclops

4E Cyclopes vs 5E cyclopes
Fourth edition changed cyclopes pretty drastically. They were changed from giants to fey, then back to giants with fifth edition. Additionally, cyclopes in fourth edition became fairly advanced Underdark dwelling creatures and reverted back to fairly primitive surface dwellers in fifth edition. I'm looking to add the information from the 5E Monster Manual, but with so many flat out contradictions abound, I'm wondering what the best thing to do here would be. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?Falren1 (talk) 00:52, January 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, the conflicts you list here don't seem that "flat out" to me, all things considered. For one, a monster's type is a crunch thing. It's used for classification and game mechanics, not for lore. A 4e cyclops is still a giant in the mind of a human, simply because it is large. The game mechanics are simply different. "Fey" in 4e is an "origin"; it just means that the monster's history has a connection to the Feywild. That does not conflict with a cyclops being a giant in any way. These terms go in the infobox, which auto-generates categories; they do not necessarily even need to be mentioned in the body text of the article.


 * As far as locale, there is nothing in these sourcebooks stating that all cyclopes live in the Underdark in one case and on the surface in the other. Why could there not be a population of each group?


 * The other thing to consider is that FR sources trump core sources. If a core 4e book claims that cyclopes originated in the Feywild, that is only true if no FR book conflicts. In the FR, the two major sources for cyclopes lore that I know of are Giantcraft (2e) and Shining South (3e).


 * The former book says that cyclopes claimed to be true giants (a lore term, not a crunch term) descending from Annam All-Father, which would imply that they are not, in fact, from the Feywild. However, most true giants believed cyclopes to be giant-kin, from one of Othea's affairs. If the latter is true, (and it probably is, as it is well-established how many terrestrial sons Annam had,) they may well have originated in the Feywild after all. And indeed, this is what a 4e source, Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide confirms.


 * FRCG also describes them as slaves in the Underdark to fomorians, so that does not seem all that advanced to me.


 * I'll have to look at Shining South when I get home to see if it has any origins lore, but I don't think it does. In which case, we report that they did, in fact, come from the Feywild, even though those on Toril pre- and post-sundering wrongly believed that they were "true giants".


 * Scanning the 5e Monster Manual, I don't see anything that conflicts with this. It says there that "legends" claimed they were half-breeds from one of the giant gods. That perfectly matches what Giantcraft says.


 * I hope this helps a little. Feel free to discuss any other potential conflicts and how to resolve them.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:41, January 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Lhynard beat me to it, and he knows much more about giants than I do. :)


 * As per our Canon policy, lore from all editions can be included, but where there are contradictions or changes, the later edition takes precedence by default (though not always). In the case of cyclopes, if 5e says they're giants, then they're giants again, but the 4e fey type and such remains in the infobox and categories, while the main article text should say they're giants.


 * Within the article, contradictions or variations can be clarified with statements like "Around 1479 DR, it was reported cyclopes were..." and "Later reports around 1491 DR described cyclopes as...". In general, the lore of the later edition and FR sources has prominence over earlier editions and core sources. In this case, if 4e's cyclops is superseded by 5e's, then 4e's is given a backseat to 5e's.


 * Other options are a semi-split: if you can narrow it down to 1e/2e/3e/5e primitive surface-dwelling cyclopes and 4e advanced Underdark-dwelling cyclopes, then you can use this to clarify the differences: "surface-dwelling cyclopses do this while Underdark-dwelling cyclopses do that". If you find the two versions utterly irreconcilable, then a full page split might be in order, as with Shadar-kai and Shadar-kai (fey) or Kenku and Kenku (winged). — BadCatMan (talk) 02:00, January 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the advice! I think what I might take Catman's approach and mention a difference between surface dwelling cyclopes and subterranean ones.Falren1 (talk) 02:19, January 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Great. That seems to be what the article is already trying to do, so anything that makes that distinction more clear would be an improvement. ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:44, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my memory of Shining South was correct; there really isn't much there for lore. It doesn't even state where they were located in the south. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:10, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

For the record, you can find cyclopes in the south, there's mention of cyclopes residing in Snapping Turtle Bay, in Chult and it mentions that they range from the Peaks of Flame to the Valley of dread, it was a good bit of writing, and it also explained why there's barely any mention of them in Storm King's Thunder... ~Jacktoland (talk)