User talk:Vegepygmy

Welcome!
Well met, Vegepygmy, and welcome to the Forgotten Realms Wiki! Thank you for your edit to the User talk:BadCatMan page. We hope you like the place and decide to stay and explore the Forgotten Realms with us.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful, that explain who we are and what we do and how we do it. You should find these a useful reference, or maybe they could give you some ideas for something to do.

It's our goal to be a complete and reliable encyclopaedia of the official Forgotten Realms in all its forms, and a valuable resource for all Realms fans, players, and dungeon masters. As such, we do not accept fan fiction, homebrew lore, and player characters. All information added to this wiki must be attributed to an official source. Information must not be copied from sourcebooks and novels. Please always give a source for your information, and explain what you've done in the "summary" box.

We hope you enjoy editing here. Please sign your messages on Talk and Forum pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, please leave a message on my talk page or ask any of the administrators about things.

Again, welcome! Happy scribing!

— Moviesign (talk) 17:45, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Using Citations
BadCatMan gave you a step-by-step summary on your anonymous user page User talk:184.88.10.180. There is also Help:Citing sources which also takes you through the process. Please use the Source editor, it will all make much more sense. :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:05, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Writing style advice
Hi! Please make sure you always use past tense in article, as per our Past-tense policy. Furthermore, you don't have to always capitalise creature names in regular text as they are not proper nouns. For example, "Umber hulks were found..." not "Umber Hulks are found..." This will make your articles easy to follow and for others to correct. Thanks. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:15, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Making an effort to kick that habit. On another note, I made the Infiltrator page based on the Mongrel page and I don't know how to remove categories. Vegepygmy (talk) 05:24, June 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I went over the mongrelman infiltrator page and cleaned it up. You can see the changes here. In particular, I used the full version of the infobox (never know when it might need to be added to), changed a few more instances of present tense and corrected some grammar, while Moviesign fixed the page numbers. Please make sure to use the actual page number, not the PDF page number.


 * The categories on the page are automatically generated by infobox entries, they can't be removed. There are no hard-coded categories on that page. Normally, however, categories can be added and removed from the Categories sidebar in the Source Editor, added via the Add Category button at the bottom of a regular page, or added via the Categories menu in the Visual Editor. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:57, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * So what if a category isn't accurate and it needs to be altered then?
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 15:41, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention I had misunderstood the above earlier. I get it now. I'm a berk sometimes.
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 15:41, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention I had misunderstood the above earlier. I get it now. I'm a berk sometimes.

Tren
Hey there, we have a problem with their origin story. Two forgotten realms references from 3.5e contradict eachother. Drizzt's guide says that the illithid of Oryndoll created the tren, whereas you found a source that says that yuan-ti created the tren.

Double checking.

Yes. It clearly says that the tren were created through yuan'ti breeding experiments on page 44 of Serpent Kingdoms. On the other hand it clearly states that the illithid created them in Oryndoll on page 81 of Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark. Awaiting your response.Gem Hound (talk) 00:29, June 23, 2019 (UTC)


 * Well bother. That's something of a nuisance. Alright how about this. Drizzt's guide is by its nature a guide made by someone else. Serpent Kingdoms is more like history being stated as fact. It's kinda like how Volo's guide is taken less seriously in places when it contradicts because it's being claimed by someone within the story. Drizzt doesn't go indepth on how the Illithids made the Tren while SK does. And I find it somewhat more believable that the Yuan-ti succeeded in that department since they are more closely related to the lizards. Especially when the Flayers already had Tzakandi as lizard slaves and a host of other powerful creatures to serve them without needing to create one that smells. Other sources I found said that Illithids didn't particularly like eating troglodytes do to their incredible stupidity and I can't find the value in using them as anything but flesh to be thrown into the cogs of other races' war machines. Besides that the Underdark is 2nd edition while Kingdoms is 3.5 and I can only assume the change was made because the Tren didn't make sense or fit the squid theme like the Mind Flayer's other pets and monsters. Ultimately I'm far from the last word on this but I would say that either the mind flayer's stole the credit or stole the methodology for creating Tren, and that Drizzt was mistaken.


 * (Vegepygmy (talk) 01:35, June 23, 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it should at least mention it, I will be doing that with the Serpent Kingdoms reference on the Oryndoll page. I put a note on the Oryndoll page, but it would be best to say Drizzt once said this but then scholars said this.Gem Hound (talk) 19:32, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add though that there is alot of information in that book that Drizzt could not have IC, like the inner workings of a city like Oryndoll for instance as well as the ways in, which knowledge of which is actively stripped from everywhere.Gem Hound (talk) 04:38, June 25, 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also add to that, that it does fit the theme actually. Not the theme of mind flayers, but the theme of Oryndoll. 80% of Oryndoll's thralls were reptilians, with 95% of the ceremorphs being Tzakandi. So for Oryndoll in particular it did fit the theme. The city when you crunch numbers had about 16,400 Tren, Troglodytes, Lizardfolk and Tzakandi - while there were only 6,000 mind flayers including ulitharid.Gem Hound (talk) 13:40, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

I mean the themes of the mind flayers being brain monsters and tentacle creatures.

Vegepygmy (talk) 15:12, June 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * Duergar are not brain monsters or tentacle creatures yet they were also created by the illithid. I looked at it and we both were wrong about that. I was wrong in thinking it was specific to Oryndoll, You were wrong in thinking that they are just monsters. That may be their appearance, but the illithid's theme is extremely intelligent alien invaders bent on either outright destruction or devolution of civilizations on Toril. It always has been. So, it would make sense for the illithid of Oryndoll, after their failed attempts to create a super soldier thrall in the duergar, would try to do so with their primary thralls for the same reason. A large part of the illithid actually involves experimenting with other races–which doesn't just stop with ceremorphosis. They wish to be on the top and squash anything beneath them... They will go to any length to achieve victory beyond using arcane magic, and more often than not play the long game. They are after all "destined" to rule over the thrall races.Gem Hound (talk) 17:10, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

The Pack
I believe that The Pack is written about most in Elminster's Ecologies: The Great Gray Land of Thar pages 14 and 15. -hashtalk 02:05, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

Fiends
I've been really enjoying all your additions to the fiendish articles! I feel like a lot of those demons and devils are going to make appearances in the upcoming Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus. Ruf (talk) 17:20, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know that. Well thank you. I just noticed that all these fiend articles were really bare bones and that there has to be more to these guys than just a bit ugly and mean. Vegepygmy (talk) 19:59, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

Image Sourcing
Look, for the record you really need to put more care into uploading images if you insist on doing it, they're completely sloppy and worse, it's clear you made very little effort.

You have to provide categories, and there didn't seem to be any effort to discern the artist, even when Tony Diterlizzzi's art clearly has his initials on it, and he is literally the only artist who worked on the book. Please try and put some more care into it in future.~User:Jacktoland (talk) 19:52, September 15, 2019 (GMT)

Alright. I will pay more attention to this in future.Vegepygmy (talk) 18:54, September 15, 2019 (UTC)

New Template
Hi! Thanks for all the hard work on the creatures articles. I wanted to let you know about a new template SirWhiteOut has set up

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Template:SI

It's used for heights and lengths and such, converting them from imperial to metric. Check the documentation for usage and more info. It's super easy to use. If you want to see it in action on an article, i added it to the Piscoloth page in the infobox and description section.

Cheers! --Regis87 (talk) 19:01, September 15, 2019 (UTC)

Cool. But there's a minor problem though. I was still finishing piscoloth up when I went to dhergoloth for reference and the template is broken there. I don't know the problem and I can't seem to fix it. Vegepygmy (talk) 19:07, September 15, 2019 (UTC)


 * It's fixed now. Let me know if you find anything weird. ‒ Sirwhiteout (talk) 19:16, September 15, 2019 (UTC)

The template seems to space bar itself whenever I edit a page. Yagnoloth is an example. Change something and then check what happens in desktop preview. Vegepygmy (talk) 22:16, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Vrock Reference
Back in August when you updated the vrock page, you added this citation:  which I was going to fix up to use the Cite dragon template, but Dragon #25 doesn't have anything about vrocks in it that I could find. Would you please review that paragraph and provide the correct source? Let us know if we need to create a new citation template for the new reference. Thanks! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:55, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems I got confused. It wasn't *dragon* magazine it was *dungeon* magazine. An old adventure where some PCs had to deal with an ancient released vrock. Fixing now, and thanks again.Vegepygmy (talk) 16:06, October 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * Very good. I have created the missing citation template for it. Much appreciated. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:58, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hello and Paeliryons
Oh dear, I have no clue how things work around here (that statement includes the 'talk' stuff), but the time I used the sourcebook text like that it was flagged as Copyright issue and promptly deleted, please double check if it's not the case. I really like this monster and I would be sad if it got deleted again.

Matgoben (talk) 17:07, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

You have to use the text description, but phrase it in your own words. For example hill giants are described in early editions to look like neanderthals but you wouldnt tell from there 5e picture. Just write it like an essay where you take multiple sources and carefully put them together. I think I'm rather thorough and the page is still there so you can check it out if you wish. Cheers. Vegepygmy (talk) 22:19, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Year Monsters
Hi! Since you work so much on creature pages, letting you know about this years big project, the Year of Monsters. --Regis87 (talk) 18:01, January 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks and looks cool. So question. The leucrotta for example was something I previously worked on and seems 'done' relatively speaking. Would I put my name next to it's spot in the Volo list?Vegepygmy (talk) 01:08, January 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes! Anything you worked on by all means tag it. I'm going to be going through and marking the stubs with a 🔶 next to the creature. I have to travel until Monday so I will do so when I get back. --Regis87 (talk) 01:26, January 2, 2020 (UTC)

References & Accuracy
Vegepygmy, on the Nightmare (creature) page, in the Death section, the Faces of Evil page 64 reference was plainly wrong. There's nothing about nightmares or the Hill of Bone on page 64, and I can't see where it might in the rest of the book. Moreover, in my copy-edit, I found some things that were mistaken or confusing or misplaced. So, could you please check and correct this, and make sure you use the correct references and ensure your rewritten information is accurate? — BadCatMan (talk) 05:39, March 28, 2020 (UTC)

Checking this late at night and I'm about to go to bed, but sorry. It was page 64 of the Liber Malevolent from the Planes of Conflict. Must have missed it. I'll do a proper check in the morning see if I missed anything else. Also could I get an example of things that were mistaken and confusing? Just so I can get a sense of direction. Thanks.Vegepygmy (talk) 06:40, March 28, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You can use the revision history of the page to see the changes, as here (mine, yours, and a few others included). I simplified and removed some phrasing; while a bit of embellishment and descriptiveness is fine, some is unnecessary and you seem to over-explain and repeat a little bit, which can lead your writing astray when things aren't well explained. And if an article is too long, readers can tired and bored of it. A good rule-of-thumb is to write in less words than the sourcebook uses where possible.


 * In particular, you wrote "Nightmares could inflict deaths so gruesome that revenge-obsessed phantoms could be created from the process, but unlike most fiends, could die of natural causes." That conflates two entirely separate bits of lore: phantoms rising from their victims, and the death of nightmares. Putting them together like thus implies it's the phantoms who are fiends who can die, and that is wrong. I simplified the first part to "Nightmares could inflict deaths so gruesome they could create enraged and vengeful phantoms." and moved it to Abilities, and left out the second part as it's implicit in the Death section.


 * Another is "Whoever fed them would be their master for three days, but failing to do so forced those that called them to persuade the nightmare into service." That again conflates two bits of lore, and the second part is very confusing. There was nothing about failing to feed the nightmare after summoning it. Instead, the source talked about how fiends didn't need to do what mortals did with the nightmares. Hence, I changed it to "Whoever fed them would be their master for three days. Beings of the Lower Planes didn't need to do this, but whatever agreement they made was unknown to mortals."


 * So, it's important to make sure the information is accurate, focused, and clear. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:03, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

1. Fair enough about the embellishment. I do have a tendency to fancify my phrasing although I like to think I stem most of it before publishing. 2. Again fair enough, probably should have separated those bits. When I'm gathering my info and reorganizing it there are occasionally pieces that can't fit anywhere else and which I try to sort somewhere else in the paragraphs and I can see how that'd be unclear. 3. If my memory serves there was one source about the nightmare not having to do as ordered once summoned if not fed, although I can't remember exactly where it was.

So both sorry and thanks. I'll try to cut back on the wordiness.Vegepygmy (talk) 02:19, March 29, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for that, it's appreciated. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:59, March 29, 2020 (UTC)