Discussion Characters / DungeonsAndDragonsCreatures

I've largely washed my hands of the various Creatures pages, but I will say this for the golems:

Nuke 'em.

Seriously, you have thirty-three different golems in that folder with a lot of repeated tropes, and each one has its own picture. It's understandable to want to flesh out every single variant of a creature, and makes sense when there's variety there like with angels, demons, dragons, mind flayers, beholders, and what not. But golems are literally just mindless robots: the only real differences between them are what materials they made from, and what magic spells will supercharge them.

Get rid of all those pictures and squish 'em into a single entry. Just put "varies" for Challenge Rating.

That's my two cents on the golem issue.

Agreed on the golem front.

Yes, "Achilles Heel" and "Feed It With Fire" appear as often in golem entries as "Deceased And Diseased" and "The Virus" appear with undead, or "Playing With Fire" and the other elemental tropes appear in dragon folders. But I'm going to have to disagree with the assessment that golems are just material variations of the same entry. For every straightforward, no-frills stone or clay golem, there's something more distinct and trope-y like the drolem, fang golem or shadesteel golem. Some are straightforward smashers, some have an array of weird abilities at their disposal, some are even intelligent. Tossing them all out just because some golems don't stand out as much as others would be a loss.

I'm frankly surprised a golem page is the most controversial part of my proposals, rather than my suggestion to shuffle the undead onto the main index.

I disagree on the loss of value. More to the point, I no longer feel that every single creature which has ever appeared in a dnd publication needs its own dedicated folder or sub-entry within a folder. The ones that appear frequently across multiple editions and have a lot written about things like their societies and mindsets, sure, those are worth keeping. But a creature that only appeared in a single issue of Dragon magazine back in 3rd edition and was never referenced again in subsequent editions? Not so much.

Let me put it this way, Tacitus. Wizards has put out a lot of sourcebooks dedicated to specific monsters or groups of monsters over the years. In this edition alone, we've had things like Volo's, the first Mordenkainen's , Fizban's, and Bigby's. But I don't see them putting out a book called, say, Coaxmetal's Manual Of Golems any time soon. To my knowledge, they've never put out a book specifically about golems. If anything, golems appear as side monsters in books about other creatures.

I really think you need to start dialling it back with adding creatures to these pages in general, because if you keep on as you've been keeping on, we will reach a point where there will be, at minimum, two creature pages for every single letter of the alphabet.

If the collective contributions of obsessive archivists added every D&D monster in existence to the creature index, even the most banal Underground Monkey or fluff-less critter like the 3E Monster Manual II's cloaked ape, and that blew up the Creatures index to a full 100 pages, we'd still be over 200 pages short of how many pages our wiki has devoted to recapping episodes of Doctor Who. So I'm having a hard time understanding your reaction to the prospect of additional pages being added to this index of creatures from a 50-year-old media colossus.

I don't think trying to come up with some sort of criteria like "a monster must have appeared in multiple editions to be added" is the right move. Some creatures keep appearing across editions but are still relatively undeveloped - gricks for example have been around since I think 3E, but there's still pretty basic beasties - while others are one-edition wonders that are trope-y as hell, like the 4E shardminds and star spawn. Or just too weird not to mention, like the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing and carbuncle, which haven't been seen since 1E.

What makes a monster worth recording on these pages is of course going to be subjective - this is all the work of fans who are passionate about the hobby, and we're going to have different ideas about which monsters are interesting. I would have given the crag cat and sorrowfish a pass, but someone else wanted to mention them, and I'm not going to delete someone's contribution and try to win an edit war over it. There are a couple of stubby folders for monsters I have absolutely nothing to say about, but maybe some other user will at some point. And evidently someone is having fun digging up quirky golem variants like the puzzle and relief golems, so good for them.

But okay, no one else thinks it's worthwhile to give them their own subpage. Message received.

I mean... broadly speaking, I think that the only really worthwhile metric to use to judge whether something warrants a dedicated character entry is the amount of distinct tropes and interesting text that can be gathered for them — the total amount of real-life written material would be broadly indicative of the likelihood of getting a lot of it, but I don't think that that'd be the actual delineator of "worth" in itself. So insofar as golems go, I honestly don't actually care a whole entire lot if they appear over many editions or just in one odd publication? I'm mostly just concerned with whether interesting entries can be written about them.

Looking over the golem folder now, I'm thinking that I was probably over-hasty with my initial call. The two tropes do see a lot of repetition and some entries are very bare-bones, but most have a decent if not incredible amount of distinct material about them. I'm... not actually super convinced that I want to see that cut anymore. At least the more well-developed entries like the Black Ice Golem, Blood Golem of Hextor, Coal Golem, Fang Golem and so on definitely would be better off staying.

I'm glad you took a second look at the golems, some of them are indeed more than the sum of their parts.

When it comes to including creatures, for me the first step is seeing if there's anything about the monster that hooks me, which starts with its design and then goes through its game behavior and fluff. This is admittedly usually easy to do if D&D's monster designers are doing their jobs. Once something about the creature catches my interest, I see how I can describe that monster in terms of tropes, with the goal of getting at least three, and having enough to say about the creature that the text describing it isn't shorter than the accompanying picture.

As for what kind of creature I'm happy to not include: the aforementioned cloaked ape from the 3E Monster Manual II. Its defining trait is that it has skin flaps to let it glide (or fly, by rules as written). It has a mere six sentences describing it before getting into its Combat section, which tell us that it's an omnivore that glides through the forest, and their troops will throw things at intruders, only resorting to combat if the apes greatly outnumber them. It has the Improved Grab, Fast Healing, and Scent abilities, and its stat block adds DR 5/silver and low-light vision.

So, translated to tropes, that would give us something like Healing Factor, The Nose Knows, Silver Bullet, Downplayed Innate Night Vision since it doesn't have full darkvision, maybe Not Quite Flight from the description if not the rules. Possibly Unreliable Illustrator because its depicted with a tail despite being an ape. Could add Death from Above since a sentence mentions it dives on small animals it hunts, though it doesn't have any sort of dive attack. Hit-and-Run Tactics, since it has the Flyby Attack feat.

That's obviously more than three tropes, and about as many as a mainstay monster like the nightmare, but isn't all of that kind of meh? Just a collection of game mechanic tropes and the mention that the art doesn't match the description? And "it's an ape with patagia" isn't much of a hook. Its description is so lackluster that we're not even told the color of this cloaked ape's fur. Really, the most interesting thing about it is that the designers basically wrote up a pre-sapient hadozee, which is kind of hilarious in hindsight given the hadozee's initial 5E backstory.

So yeah, that's my thought process behind monster selection. Now I'm going to resume going crazy trying to figure out which issue of Dragon had an article that mentioned how flesh golems were probably the first golem type created, as part of early necromantic experiments. It wasn't an "Ecology of the X" article because someone did a spreadsheet listing that series and there's never been a golem-centric one, so where the hell did I read it?

The "I to L" situation has been resolved with a three-page split, so my next plans are to distribute the Undead onto the main index and retire the last of the subtype pages at some point this weekend. No one has voiced any objections to this move on that page's discussion section or in here, so now's the last chance.

I don't think I'll be migrating some of the entries, though. I'm not comfortable deleting someone else's contribution, but some of the undead I put there back in the day are, on further reflection, meh. The bone and corpse rat swarms are skeletal and zombified versions of a standard rat swarm, and can be mentioned next to a "Swarm of Rats" bullet under the common Undead tropes section, while the hulking corpse doesn't have anything interesting about it beyond being inexplicably big. I'll leave a note explaining why I didn't migrate particular entries on the Undead discussion page in case anyone disagrees and wants them around.

Also, I think I'll be simplifying those entries with multiple creature pictures when said creatures haven't received a redesign across editions. Sorry allip, banshee, ghost, nightwalker and skull lord.

Okay, got nearly all the Undead distributed onto the main creature index. To my surprise, this only resulted in a blue page length warning once, on the "U to Z" page. Somehow the "D" page still doesn't need a split despite being one of the most popular letters after S, but at 233,479 characters that day will come. "N to Q" is getting there too, with 238,689 characters, but "B" survived all the "bone"s with less than 150,000 characters.

The undead I didn't migrate are still on the Undead page, in case anyone think they're worth moving over like the others (all but the ashenwight are "mine" in the sense that I'm the one who added them, but consider them disowned). I'm not rushing to (figure out the process of petitioning someone to) shut down that page, but I have been deleting the links to it on the creature pages in preparation of it being decommissioned.

In the meantime, that "U to Z" page warning. It's just over 103 Word pages long, and the break between V and W comes on page 48, so I'm thinking that's a decent place to do the split. I'll get to that next.

You can add the page to the cutlist under Resources > Tools in the sidebar. If you want to petition people about it, you can bring it up in Ask The Tropers. That's what I did to have the various real-world deities pages (which were just walls of plagiarized text with no tropes beyond Character Alignment) be cut three years ago... which did not stop someone from bringing them back with different names later on, but I digress.

Thanks for the info, I haven't had to do this sort of "administrative" stuff before. I'll do that to the defunct old Fiends page too, since it's still floating around with only a few links to it remaining.

If I am understanding you correctly, what you are suggesting is essentially phasing out the current trend towards creature subtype pages and instead moving more towards prioritizing pages for creature families (i.e. demons, devils, mind flayers, beholderkin, giants, true dragons) when and where such sections become meaty enough to justify a dedicated page? If so, I am not against it at all. You are right that creature types are decidedly prone to changes, and that the "lesser dragons" section on the dragons page feels like a bit of an afterthought. By contrast, yes, things like true dragons or mind flayers have much more consistent worldbuilding, thematic links, and, perhaps more importantly, material currently here on this wiki. I can definitely see a strong argument for reorganizing things along those lines.

Yep, you've summarized my position nicely.

It wouldn't even be "phasing out a trend," there are only the "Dragons," "Fiends" and "Undead" pages with entries separate from alphabetized monster index, and I haven't heard or seen any suggestions to set up a similar page for Aberrations, for example. So going through with my proposal would just mean that the non-true dragons rejoin the liondrakes and drakkensteeds on the main list, the "Dragons" page gets repurposed as the "small-d dragons" page (I don't even see a need to change the name, especially since I find "Characters/DungeonsAndDragonsDragons" hilarious), the "Fiend" page gets evacuated and nuked, and its tropes describing Fiends as an Outsider type get put on a new "Creature Types" page.

Meanwhile the giants and mind flayers would go from huge folders to their own pages, along with the beholderkin, probably. And I can't really think of any other creatures with enough content and monster "family" members in their folders to justify their own spin-off pages.

So a bit of copy-pasting from the Fiend and Dragon pages, a new "Creature Types" page to hold the tropes common to Fiends, Aberrations, Fey, etc., and three other new pages for the beholderkin, giants and mind flayers. Not a huge shake-up or a daunting task, I feel.

...I swear there was at one time a page of tropes about creature types in general, linked to on the main Dungeons & Dragons page. That would certainly make setting up a "Creature Types" page easier, but did it even exist, or did I imagine it?

Okay, got a Dungeons And Dragons Creature Types page going. Kind of struggling to come up with things to say about Humanoids and Monstrosities, mainly because the categories are so huge that there aren't many tropes that apply to all of the creatures in them (especially since a lot of Monstrosities are simply "they don't fit in any other category in 5th Edition"). I'm also unsure about the "Undead" section, whether or not it'd be better to move the common tropes from the Undead subpage there or leave it as is. It might depend how full the Undead page is getting.

At any rate, assuming that looks good, that lays the foundation for shifting the Dragon subpage's focus to "true" dragons and migrating capital-D-but-not-quite-"true"-dragon Dragons onto the main index, migrating the generic Fiends off that page and retiring it, and giving the beholderkin, giants and mind flayers their own subpages.

Oh, and I'm mostly done with the Setting-Specific Creatures page migration, I just wanted to set up the Creature Types page before moving its Dragons and Fiends onto the main list and potentially causing confusion. Another obstacle is the monsters from the Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep sourcebook, which I don't own and have no interest in buying, preventing me from filling out their folders. Anyone got a one- or two-sentence summation of those freaky fish so they're not just a picture and two or three tropes in a folder?

I agree to giving the Mindflayers an individual page do to how much is tied to them (cereomphisis creating individual creature-hybrids and other experimental agents) along with sub-factions of theirs that have their own unique monsters and motives i.e. “the Mindflayers of Thoon”.

Okay, status report:

I'm pretty much done with the Dungeons & Dragons: Setting-Specific Creatures page migration. The only remaining non-Magic creatures are either stuff I don't think are worth porting, like the Istarian drone (a creature from a single site in a single adventure) and feral spirit (more undead vermin), or in the death dragon's case is something that ought to be put on the bottom of the Dragon subpage once that is remodeled into the true dragon subpage that has an "undead dragons" section at the end of it. And then there's those creatures from Call of the Netherdeep I can't say anything about beyond their physical appearance and stats on 5e.tools because I don't own the book and don't plan to buy it, but it looks like someone is migrating them already, so good on them.

Which means that the now-defunct and inaccurately-named "setting-specific creatures" page is getting close to being retired. The question of what to do with the Magic entries remains, and is ongoing on its discussion page.

Every creature on the general "Fiends" page has been copy-pasted over to the main index, with the exception of the Abyssal drakes, which I reasoned might do better on the "demons" page. Which means that, with all the information about fiends/outsiders in general being displayed on the Dungeons And Dragons Creature Types page, the "Fiends" subpage has outlived its usefulness. I am unfamiliar with the protocol for getting a page deleted, so if someone knows how to do that, go for it?

We now have a Dungeons & Dragons: Mind Flayers subpage, complete with redlinks to the Dungeons And Dragons Beholderkin and Dungeons And Dragons Giants subpages ready to be made blue. The beholderkin ought to be a simple matter of converting subheader entries into folders, while the giants will probably need an additional subsection for undead giants like the mind flayer page. And maybe those X hulks from Bigby's? In any rate, a bit more shuffling of entries around for that one.

After that will be the matter of updating the Creature pages' headers, and we probably ought to re-write the page intro to explain that we're no longer segregating monsters between "setting-agnostic" and "setting-specific." And finally will come the clean-up of the dragons subpage to get the lesser dragons off it, add an "undead dragons" section, and decide how the hell to organize the drakes.

So: project nearing completion, Fiends page ready for deletion, lots of boring work updating headers and page intros, might need to replace the "Setting-Specific Creatures" subpage with a "Crossover Creatures" subpage for the Magic entries if we really want to keep them (I don't, but like I said, the debate is ongoing).

And now I think I'm done migrating the non-MTG creatures away from the setting-specific page. The only remaining things are the rakshasa and draconian folders, which I'm not sure how to handle (might need to give each individual rakshasa type its own sub-heading within the folder). I don't see the 'age' of a particular creature as a problem either since it can always be expanded later on.

I'd prefer to move the MTG (and other crossover) creatures over for consistency as well, but I guess that could be revisited when one of them shows up in a module set in a non-MTG setting. Magic: The Gathering does not have any subsections for creatures, so they don't have anywhere else to go either.

Most of the pertinent information from the Setting-Specific Creatures page concerning the draconians and rakshasas is already in their folders on the main list, so I'd wager no further action is required. I guess if you really wanted you could add subheadings for rakshasa subtypes to their folder, but personally I wouldn't bother, the one or two tropes associated with each subtype are already there.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent about excluding MtG creatures from the D&D creatures index, but in the unlikely event that some 5.5E sourcebook mentions a Ravnican skyswimmer flying over Baldur's Gate or a woe strider being sighted on the edge of the Mournland, I'll have to reexamine that position. As for what to do with the Magic critters' entries, I'm still open to them being shifted to a "Crossover Creatures" page, or their tropes could be migrated to the Flavor and Story Tropes subpages, for want of a dedicated Magic Creatures page.

But honestly, if the most we can say about a Therosian phylaskia is that "it's a skeleton," I don't think much is being lost if the entry gets deleted.

So after a little procrastination, I've shifted what's left of the setting-specific page into a new Dungeons And Dragons Crossover Creatures page. Still not quite sure if crossover-specific variants of established D&D creatures (namely the snapping and ironscale hydra) should be moved over though.

Nice work. I always felt guilty about having the nezumi on the main list, and now there's a better place for them. Maybe someday I'll flip through the 3E Oriental Adventures book again and fill out a Legend of the Five Rings section.

I'd keep the Magic hydras (hydrae?) where they are, myself. Don't look at it as the Magic variant of a D&D creature, think of it as D&D and Magic both cribbing concepts from the same mythology.

I think it could be a good addition. I'm not inclined to position myself against adding clarifying info to entries; if you feel up to the task, I'm not going to stop you.

Origins added, where I could. Stuff from Spelljammer and Kara-tur and Forgotten Realms are generally easy, save for curveballs like the "Oriental dragons" counter-intuitively predating Kara-tur, but Planescape is trickier because a lot of creatures that are expanded upon in its books were actually introduced in a nonspecific Outer Planes Index that came out three years before. So bariaur actually predate Planescape proper, as do the aasimon and fiendish subraces, but not the guardinals and eladrins. And the slaadi date back to the 1E Fiend Folio, while the modrons debuted back in the 1E Monster Manual II as best I can tell.

And then there's Greyhawk, ugh. Some of the creatures featured in the 2E Monstrous Compendium – Greyhawk Appendix like the grell, hook horror and crypt thing actually come from that 1E Fiend Folio, while others like the spriggan and yeth hound come from generic 1E Monster Manuals. So if we take that title at face value, just about EVERYTHING from 1E should be considered Greyhawk stuff. Wemics, gibbering mouthers, astral devas, driders? All from the 1st Edition Monster Manual II. Hell, even the iconic beholder first appeared in the 1E Greyhawk supplement, except that was not explicitly a campaign setting book because Gygax didn't want his players to learn his secrets.

Now, let me quickly and firmly say that I'm not in favor of Greyhawk-ing just about everything from 1E. If anything, I'm inclined to just nod along when the 2E Greyhawk Appendix supplement assures us that this classic monster is from Oerth, while this one is just a generic 1E creature. The point I'm trying to make is that trying to sort creatures by subsetting is a mess.

But, with that done, we now have a path forward for migrating things off the Dungeons & Dragons: Setting-Specific Creatures page if we so desire (which I do, as I've explained in that page's discussion). Which also means the question of what to do with the Magic and Critical Role entries can't be put off any longer, but I'll save that for that page's discussion section.

Split the dragons off into their own page since they're already off on their own, and if the page remains or re-becomes too long figure out another way to split it?

Carving things by creature type is the obvious way to do it, but the inter-edition reshufflings would probably complicate things a touch.

Well, we could probably lump most of the creatures that were previously classified as outsiders together into a single page. Celestials, fiends, modrons, slaadi, that sort of stuff.

I'll get to work on a page for the dragons shortly.

...No wonder the page needs to be split. There's a huge block of commented-out general monster tropes right under the dragon's section; it works out to 406 lines of text in a Notepad document, almost twice as long as the dragon section itself.

EDIT: A lot of these commented-out tropes were for general D&D. There was an entry for Turn Undead, for instance, that just talks about the class feature for Clerics and Paladins. Didn't have a damn thing to do with any specific monsters in the game.

I've saved them into a Notepad and am going through them with a fine-toothed comb. I'll add the ones worth keeping back in, but the rest are getting deleted.

... oh. Huh. I can't believe I didn't think of that.

That's an artifact from when this page was made, incidentally. I think this was originally made as a general trope page to split off monster tropes from the main list but was placed under the "Characters" namespace (which for what it was trying to be it shouldn't have been). Then the page was redrafted to fit character page standards and most of the old material was left where it was but commented out.

Most of the dross can probably just be placed in the main page(s) if it isn't there already.

Late to the discussion here, I'm pretty sure the page will get overly big and will have to be split, sooner or later. Having looked at the rulesets of all editions from AD&D to 5E, I think I can safely say that there's no neat way to divide creatures by classification without a lot of rampant speculation about how creatures that don't exist in a particular edition would be classified in other editions. Only a few categories, like constructs and dragons, remain somewhat consistent.

I'm thinking of splitting off the various creature families (demons, devils, angels, genies, mind flayers, beholderkin, and so on) into their own page, setting-specific monsters into others (but we'd need to determine if these pages should house creatures that made their way from a specific setting to becoming setting-neutral, like modrons, or not), and then the rest of the individual monsters could be split alphabetically.

I think you make some fair points.

Some typings do remain fairly consistent long-term (mainly dragons, constructs and undead, I would believe) and can probably be used for making subdivisions, but others are indeed to variable in their use and naming to seem advisable for this role. Using informal families of monsters is probably a good idea. It might be worth talking about whether to let such pages cross creature typings (for instance — should dracoliches, which are normally undead, go on the dragon page?)

I'm not familiar enough with the histories of the more setting-specific creatures, but I think that if a specific creature has tended to appear in multiple settings or setting-agnostic material despite originating in a specific work it probably shouldn't be split to that specific work's section.

I would also prefer to be a bit conservative about splitting pages — that is, to avoid splitting off a large number right off the bat. My preference would be to split off one or two as becomes necessary when the page grows too long, based on which would have the most material. It might still be useful to use the others to create internal splits here, though — they'd make sorting more efficient, and would help test a category's viability without committing to a new page.

Well, that latest influx of folders did it. The page needs to be split.

We could start by splitting off the setting-specific section, since it's already bundled up on its own. Then we might make some soft splits in what's left to start making some cutting lines for future divisions.

I've split the setting-specific section off into its own page, as suggested.

I've split the setting-specific section off into its own page, as suggested.

So now the various kinds of fiends are now split into their own page. I think I've already explained earlier in the discussion why this is a bad idea.

The split seems to have been done by an editor who hasn't participated in this discussion, so I don't think they'd have seen that objection.

I noticed that; the question is what should we do about it?

Given the lack of responses, I'm assuming that we should just do nothing.

Still, I'll add a notice to discuss splits before enacting them. That's probably a good idea in general.

Now that I've (finally) started adding 3E content to this page, I've found the first creature that runs into this problem: the devourer (which is undead in 3E and fiend in 5E). I certainly don't expect it to be the only problematic creature, especially as I haven't even opened the can of worms that is 4E yet.

Page needs to be split again.

Yeah, it does. Are undead consistent enough to split off? We could also try to group together the constructs.

After that, though, we're probably going to be out of consistently-used categories; it might be worth thinking about splitting the page alphabetically instead of by type next time this needs to be done. The handy thing there is that we can just keep that bit up forever, really.

On that note, though, I think it's worth noting that if additions keep coming at the rate they are we're going to be right back to square one by March. And perhaps that's fine and perhaps it isn't — but if it isn't, it's worth asking how much we want to add at any given time — for instance, how much material justifies adding new folders or adding headers within a folder, as opposed to grouping things together with less lines and clutter and such.

I concur with the notion of splitting alphabetically next time this happens. And I feel that the undead are consistent enough to stand on their own.

I also concur that we should probably slow down the rate at which new folders are getting added to this page. At the very least, I feel we should focus more on fleshing out those folders which are already on the page than on trying to add every single creature to ever appear in a volume of the Monster Manual.

To pick a random example out of a hat from the recent additions, let's look at the armand. I do not know what an armand is, or which specific book(s) the creature comes from. I doubt the casual reader knows the answers to those questions, either. And if the casual reader came to this page in its current state and looked at the folder for the armand, they would learn very little about them, beyond the fact that they are apparently humanoid in some respect and apparently have armoured plating.

Many other folders suffer from similar issues. And I cannot help to flesh them out because, again, I do not have the books which feature these creatures.

EDIT: On the topic of grouping things together, I think we could combine the folders for Deep Scions, Sea Spawn and Skum without any issue. They're basically just three variations on the same basic concept of humans enslaved by, and transformed into, evil sea creatures.

I have split the undead off onto their own page.

I'm not sure which name we should use for a hypothetical folder containing these three creatures though. I concur with an alphabetical split, since the other creature types are way too inconsistent to be useful (with the possible exception of constructs, though I'm pretty sure I'll dig up an inconsistently-classified creature again soon enough).

Concerning obscure creatures, if they appeared in an official book or magazine, they're as much part of the game as, say, mind flayers and demons are. It might be useful to list where their rules can be found though.

"Deep Scions, Sea Spawn & Skum" feels like a decent enough name for a folder to me.

Maybe we could turn Monstrosities into its own page? By far the largest group of monsters in 5e.

The problem is that that's not a group of creatures that's especially consistent across editions — it only kind of corresponds to the old Magical Beast category (unicorns and pegasi used to be Magical Beasts, but are now Celestials), it includes creatures that used to be Aberrations (like carrion crawlers and hook horrors), and it has no equivalent in 4E. It might work if we were only dealing with 5th Edition monsters, but what should we do when dealing with creatures that only appeared in earlier editions?

Speaking of, it's time for another split.

If we're going to do it alphabetically as previously discussed, I think all the creatures for A through E could fit on a single page with room to expand. I'm not sure how the rest of the alphabet should be divvied up, though.

F through O and then the rest? Or we could try to split the page in four.

Maybe A-E, F-L, M-S and T-Z? If not, I'll go with your suggestion.

A four-way split might help postpone the next time we do this if nothing else. But I wouldn't mind hearing some other thoughts.

While we wait, I'm going to start moving the creatures for A through E onto their own page.

EDIT: It's up.

It's been a few days and nobody else has chimed in, so I'm going to implement the three-way split. F-O and P-Z will be up shortly.

Seems that rakshasas have been moved from the P-Z subpage to the fiend subpage, since they're classified as fiends, even though they aren't actually native to the Lower Planes. Not sure if I should move them back, since the split by creature type still seems very inconsistent to me.

I went and removed as many of the Ravnica monsters as I could find, and added a line of text at the top of the page telling people to go check out the Magic: The Gathering character pages if they want to find those things.

I concur. I went and commented out all the folders that didn't contain at least one trope, and stuck a note at the top of the page.