|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 19, 2016 15:21:10 GMT -6
One of the things I like about original edition is that the monster list is full but simple. Organized by type and use rather than some arbitrary "alphabetical order" (I mean seriously). It is so useable in play.
I don't like the way that some of the monsters in the MM and later editions seem like someone's campaign one-off freak that somebody thought was so cool that it had to keep coming round again.
I love the one-off freaks, but for the "rules," I like to keep just to the traditional monsters of our western heritage -- eventually expanding to other cultures, of course. Again, one of the things I don't like about later editions of D&D is the way that they seem to represent a product that is about itself: a feedback loop where it creates its own setting and legendaria. What I love about original edition is that, like other wargames, it is about gaming something that is already there. But here it is not Napoleonic warfare, but (in this case) the monsters of our collective tradition.
That said, I sometimes feel like the list is incomplete, described or mismatched in a funny way, or that things get repeated that didn't need repeating.
So, for example, in terms of unnecessary repetition: why do we have kobolds (german goblins), goblins (English kobolds), orcs (Tolkien's goblins), and hobgoblins (another name for, well, a goblin)? Or, even if we were going for "diversity," or just a way to get a bunch of different sub-types of relatively 1HD creatures, where are the Irish goblins? The celtic ones? Russian? Heck, Japanese?
And, in terms of the match-up to the legendaria, why do the rules insist that a hydra is "unlike the standard mythological concept"? I never play them that way. My Hydras are Hydras -- giant snakes, multiple heads, two come back in two rounds after you cut off a head (unless cartelized) etc. The rules on number of heads and HD and HP still work just fine. Why did I need to be told they were in fact shaped like dinosaurs? It doesn't affect play (at least for me) mechanically, so why insist on it in the description? Never made sense to me.
In terms of mismatched names, why is a Gorgon not a generic name of which Medusa is an example, as in its actual meaning? Why is "gorgon" now a D&D word for a Behemoth? Why not: D&D Medusa just call it Gorgon / D&D Gorgon just call it Behemoth? Never understood that.
With regards to stuff that is missing (and here I mean in terms of the inherited tradition of monsters, not the "RPG feedback loop" of one-off monsters now our favorites we just must list) off the top of my head what comes to mind would be:
Anything Irish or celtic, e.g. the Banshee, etc. (Seriously I don't know nearly enough about the Tuatha De Danann, so if you can help me out here I would love it!)
Anything Russian (Again, I feel really ignorant here and wouldn't know where to start)
Yeti / Sasquatch
Antipodes
What else do you notice?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 19, 2016 18:18:45 GMT -6
phoenix
cyclopses
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 19:43:37 GMT -6
Well, the GORGON thing is from a medieval bestiary. It was exactly as Gary described it, a bull like monster with iron scales etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 19:47:43 GMT -6
Kobolds aren't just German goblins and vice versa; Kobolds are specifically malignant spirits that hang around in copper mines. They are the source of the word "cobalt." (Because of the link to "cobalt" I'm ignoring the non-mine aspects of Kobolds on purpose.)
As for hobgoblins, they're the Uruk-hai, orcs are Tolkien's orcs, and goblins are the smaller goblins of The Hobbit.
The monster list should have been labeled "SOME SUGGESTED MONSTERS." Gary TRIED to get the idea across for people to make their own but it never really caught on.
Inspired by Kobolds, I've added another Germanic mining spirit... the "nickel." The difference is that they're vaguely related to elementals; they're almost stonelike. Still only 1/2 HD, but they can't be affected by a "SLEEP" spell.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Sept 19, 2016 20:00:48 GMT -6
Any input on pig faced orcs?
I first saw them in the D&D cartoons and so I've always thought of them that way (as opposed to Tolkien orcs).
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 19, 2016 20:44:38 GMT -6
Personally, I could never get into the whole Salamander concept. Around here, salamanders are slimy little brown lizard like critters you find under rocks and leaves. If you grab them by their tail and it breaks off, they can grow a new one (:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 23:26:13 GMT -6
Again, salamanders as fire spirits goes back to the Middle Ages, but they looked like.... salamanders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 19, 2016 23:36:32 GMT -6
Holmes had the best list. 80 monsters, nothing left out.
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 69 
|
Post by Elphilm on Sept 20, 2016 0:49:53 GMT -6
 For those of you who are interested in the bull-like gorgon, here's the writeup from Topsell's bestiary. It's basically the same creature as the catoblepas, which turned up in Strategic Review as its own monster type. (D&D is full of duplicates like that.) |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 20, 2016 4:46:17 GMT -6
I've always figured that a number of the monsters were given their treatments because it started out as a miniatures game, where they used whatever they had at hand, like using toy dinosaurs to stand in for dragons and whatnot. Perhaps this is why the hydra appears the way it does?
The descriptions for djinns and efreets don't really stack up to the mythological literature, but they work just fine for modern pulp interpretations. Trying to bypass modern pulp would mean having to radically reinterpret nearly every monster entry in the M&M. Ghouls are djinn!
The part I've always had the most difficulty with are the undead. Some of the variances between zombies, ghouls, wights, wraiths, spectres, mummies and eventually liches seem forced, like they were distributed out for the sake of being able to order them into a clean hierarchy of difficulty levels. I don't mind it that way, but I still get some of the details confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 20, 2016 4:55:39 GMT -6
It might be fun to come up with an alternate monster list that pulls from legend and myth, rather than pulp. One of the main problems, though, is that mythical beasts are often either a) one of a kind, or b) rather boring additions to a dungeon crawl.
Still, many stand out with flavour. Just look at how many hooks there are in this monster write-up!
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 20, 2016 9:59:38 GMT -6
@gronanofsimmerya, thanks for all the good contextual clarification. I had not idea about that source of the "gorgon." Thanks! Good point about kobolds and their connection to mines and cobalt. (Love that connection!) When I think of kobolds though my mind tends to go more directly to house kobolds who are really bazaar: they are kind of "hearth deities." They can be spirit, appear as a young child (creepy!), little dark shadow men, or animals: usually wet rats or chickens! Now that is just freaky stuff. And, yes, I did know that stuff about the different kinds of goblins. But, like you said, the title should have been "Suggestions for Monsters." In which case, I suppose what I was thinking yesterday (although, of course, it is no big whoop) that one entry: little goblin-y kinds of things -- could have covered a lot. The description could have given some suggestions as to how to map it to whatever little goblin-y things you use in your campaign. But that, in the end, is really what they did anyway -- since that is the premise of the rules as a whole! So, cool. And, gronan, I love your "nickel." Very cool. Elphilm, thanks for the clarification on the "catoplebas." And, yes, Starbeard, I am sure you are right about the miniatures thing. I am sure Arneson just had a big dinosaur figure he added a bunch of extra heads to. I get that. But why assume in the rules that you are going to have the same miniatures or toy monsters? Still just seems a little weird to me. And awesome medieval bestiary reference! Thanks. I think over-all what I am taking away from the responses so far is that I forgot one main thing: Gygax and Arneson were not so much trying directly to engage the western classical or medieval tradition of legendary and mythical monster -- they were more directly engaging their reception and interpretation in late 19th and early 20th century fantasy fiction and, especially, pulp adventure. Man that just suddenly clarifies a lot for me and makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. Thanks guys! |
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Sept 20, 2016 22:56:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Sept 21, 2016 21:10:09 GMT -6
Since a few are getting away from D&D, I will mention that an excellent survey on the topic is the Flora and Fauna section of Bruce Galloway's Fantasy Wargaming. Touches on the varied mythologies. For years I assumed that the wail of a Banshee causes death, when in fact (?) it is only the herald of such.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Sept 27, 2016 2:59:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Sept 27, 2016 14:12:37 GMT -6
What I lament is how curtain monsters who are historically divine, demonic, or spirit-like in nature are presented an earthly magical creatures. I also have issue with some of the Greek monsters. For example: Lamassu/Shedu were divine protectors in Mesopotamian culture, found guarding homes and temples. They are similar to what is seen in MMI. lóng (aka Gold/Oriental Dragons) are divine (even god-like) dragons from Chinese mythology. Much like what is seen in the FF, they come in many forms and environments, but some may even have some cosmic sphere of influence (like the Dragon Kings control over the weather and seasons). Rakshasa/Rakshasi are demons from Indian mythology. They can take many forms (including many heads, limbs and features), but having animal heads (besides tigers) is typical. Shi/Komainu (aka Fu Dogs) are divine lion protectors seen throughout Asia. They are village and temple guardians, much like Lamassu/Shedu above. Oni (aka Ogre-Magi) are ogre-like demons from Japanese folklore. They are similar to what is seen in MMI, but with red or blue skin. Tengu (aka Kenku) are humanoid bird kami (spirits, gods, demons) from Japanese folklore. They are similar to what is seen in FF, but with a cherry-red face and a long "Pinokio" nose. Lamia was a monster from Greek mythology. She was a Libyan Queen who was transformed into a child-eating demon by a jealous Hera. Her depictions vary: A vampire-like woman; a scaled beast with a woman's head and breasts; or upper body of a woman and lower body of a snake. Gorgons (aka Medusa) where monsters from Greek mythology. They were three Greek sisters (Stheno, Euryale and Medusa) that were turn into monsters by an irate Athena (I'm detecting a pattern here). Their forms vary greatly, even into modern media (like with Clash of the Titans): Snake-hair, wings, brass or bronzed hands, fangs or tusks, protruding tongue, and so on. In my games, I treat the Rakshasa Oni, (Noble) Lamiae and Gorgons as demons-type monsters, subject (more or less) to the same rules. I treat the Lamassu/Shedu, lesser lóng and Shi/Komainu as angelic beings (see Deva), with powerful lóng going into godly territory. Based on a D&D document called The Complete Netbook of Witches & Warlocks, I class Alu-Demons, Succubi and Lamiae under the same family of demons called the Lilium. The "Gorgon" monster form the MM is what I call a "Bull Catoblepas" (with the standard Catoblepas being called a "Long-neck Catoblepas"). The standard "Medusa" monster from the MM book is classed as a Lesser Gorgon race (the Gorgon's freakish offspring), and I nerfed them into having a frightful gaze (making the effects less lethal with higher levels). Oh yes, ye olde elemental spirits of yore: Gnomes (earth) Nymphs (water) Sylphs (air) and Salamanders (fire). (The book would use the Latin word for "dwarf" (pygmaeus) to describe a gnome.) I never really liked Gnome race form AD&D, as they always felt like a whole other race of Dwarf (plus, I'm too use to see them depicted in the David the Gnome cartoon). Making them a major earth elemental race (which is generally lacking in that area) might be neat. It would be neat if someone out there had gone through old bestiaries and travel-accounts in classical lit and statted the lesser-known creatures. That would have been great. There are quite a number of old books of strange creatures out there, with many that should have been included in the old MM book. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 22:16:09 GMT -6
So stat them up yourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 28, 2016 16:31:12 GMT -6
Everyone, this is awesome stuff.
I think these posts have made me consider the following: What about those monsters that get multiplied due to the different mythologies from when they are derived, but which are, from a kind of comparative religion point of view, really quite similar realities under different names.
Like: Giants (Nordic) : Demons (Abrahamic) : Titans (Greek) : Rakshasi (Indian)
Etc.
Wonder if these could be collapsed and then the "cultural differences" described.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 157
|
Post by bat on Oct 24, 2016 17:32:02 GMT -6
Someone doesn't like the gnome! I love running gnomes as very different from dwarves, leaning on the Swedish Nesse, making them a bit shifty and inclined to nick things here and there, living on the fringes of human society and excelling in sometimes dangerous pranks that gives them a bad name although every so often a decent enough gnome will work with the Big Folk.
Edit, I was going to saythat maybe some of the source material, like Lord Dunsany, lead to the inclusion of the gnome as is. In a few of Dunsany's works gnomes are referred to.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 25, 2016 2:47:03 GMT -6
Now that's some bullsh*t right there! "bah-dum-ching"  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 25, 2016 7:53:29 GMT -6
I usually make gnomes a mix of Scandinavian nisse/tomte and 19th-century Nibelung dwarves, with some Paracelsus and Wil Huygen thrown in. Essentially, I tend to use gnomes as the dwarves of folklore, and keep dwarves closer to the ones in Tolkien. In my own experience, players seem less willing to stretch their imaginations with how dwarves are portrayed.
I think a nice little project would be to create a few 'catch-all' monster types—beasties, the dead, devils—and write them up as a single type of monster, with several suggestions of Hit Dice and abilities that use myths and folklore as examples. It would jumble up player expectations, too: there's no reason a skeleton can't cause level drains, or a group of goblins can't be 4HD monsters with the ability to pass through rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 25, 2016 7:58:23 GMT -6
Man that just suddenly clarifies a lot for me and makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. That's pretty much the story of D&D. A: "That doesn't make any sense! That's stupid!" B: "Here's why it is this way." A: "Oh! That makes perfect sense!" |
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Oct 25, 2016 16:41:27 GMT -6
These are good places to see were the influences came from. (This first link is more extensive, with more details, and is a better read.) In a nutshell, Lords of the Rings, Three Hearts and Three Lions, The Dying Earth and Greek mythology had the most influence towards the development of the game. Oh, one thing I cant find in the above links are Displacer Beasts. The Displacer Beast was based on the Coeurl form Black Destroyer (1939) and The Voyage of the Space Beagle (1950) by A. E. van Vogt. (I made a page for them in the Mutant Future Wiki)
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Oct 27, 2016 4:24:13 GMT -6
What about those monsters that get multiplied due to the different mythologies from when they are derived, but which are, from a kind of comparative religion point of view, really quite similar realities under different names. Like: Giants (Nordic) : Demons (Abrahamic) : Titans (Greek) : Rakshasi (Indian) Not to forget monsters that are differenciated only by the etymology of their name : like wraiths/spectres/ghosts or kobolds/goblins |
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Oct 27, 2016 23:37:16 GMT -6
What about those monsters that get multiplied due to the different mythologies from when they are derived, but which are, from a kind of comparative religion point of view, really quite similar realities under different names. Like: Giants (Nordic) : Demons (Abrahamic) : Titans (Greek) : Rakshasi (Indian) Not to forget monsters that are differenciated only by the etymology of their name : like wraiths/spectres/ghosts or kobolds/goblins If D&D monsters followed closely to classic myths and lore, they would play out vary differently. Elves would be Hobbit-sized fairy-folk. Goblins would ugly, malevolent versions of elves, who like elves, would have magical abilities. Like Vampires, both would have a wide range of abilities and stipulations about them (e.g. touching iron would burn their skin). Actually, most monsters would have strange, arbitrary stipulations. For example, the Sphinx killed people who failed to solve her riddle, but she kill herself when someone did. Many monsters were technically demigods (or divine beings, by their own right), like Nymphs (and their many variations), the Minotaur, Naga (all types), Oriental Dragons, and the like. Devils would have faces and heads across their bodies. Intelligent, talking animals would be really common, if not standard to all creatures. And so on, and so forth. As for cultural equivalents, there are many, with some overlap or wild variations. For example, nature spirits are highly common across the globe. People believe that they imbue life to plants and animals, and regulates their life-cycle. If someone manages to kill the spirits of the woods, the trees and underbrush will wither and die with them. In Greek and Roman mythology, Nymphs were like this. Although, Nymphs varies greatly in their role in the universe, as they were also muse, monsters (like Medusa, Scylla & Charybdis), messengers and guardian spirits (although, they generally take the form of a beautiful women). North European cultures (Nordic countries and the British isles) have Fairy spirits of all types (sprites, brownies, house elves, goblins, etc.). Japan has the Kami, who have varied roles and take many forms. Divine messengers are another common type of spirit with Angels, Nymphs, Apsara (India nymphs), Peri (Islamic angels), and so on. Trying to make an exhaustive, revised Monster Manual were all the monsters are based closely on historical mythology would get a little... Thick. And even messy in places. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Oct 29, 2016 10:35:54 GMT -6
Dave Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy actually tried to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Oct 29, 2016 10:45:15 GMT -6
Another problem with gaving monsters which are just differenciated by names that are mers synonyms is the feeling that every one is a just a bigger, tougher version of the previous one instead of their own thing: goblins are bigger kobolds, orcs are bigger goblins, hobgoblins are bigger orcs, Spectres are just meaner Wraiths, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 29, 2016 12:14:34 GMT -6
Malcadon, et al., I read you. But what if it were more archetypal in nature. What if it were like a "comparative bestiary" analogous to someone like Mircea Eliade's comparative religion? So the "monster manual" would be, perhaps, even short. You would say things like: Giant-type: Giants, jotun, rakasha, demons, etc. You would list the cultural source and give maybe a one sentence differentiator. Then the ref could decide how to flavor and branch out based upon their campaign. Fell-type: goblin, orc, kobold, gnoll, etc. Undead-type, life-drain: vampire, wraith, etc. Undead-type, enchanted / cursed: skeleton, zombie, etc. Each entry would have about a one paragraph "comparative bestiary" summary of what was shared, phenomenologically, mythomorphically, by each type. Then there could be a pretty rocking "monster generator" mechanic as an appendix! Nothing like Saturday afternoon pipe-dreaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 29, 2016 14:05:39 GMT -6
Malcadon, et al., I read you. But what if it were more archetypal in nature. What if it were like a "comparative bestiary" analogous to someone like Mircea Eliade's comparative religion? So the "monster manual" would be, perhaps, even short. You would say things like: Giant-type: Giants, jotun, rakasha, demons, etc. You would list the cultural source and give maybe a one sentence differentiator. Then the ref could decide how to flavor and branch out based upon their campaign. Fell-type: goblin, orc, kobold, gnoll, etc. Undead-type, life-drain: vampire, wraith, etc. Undead-type, enchanted / cursed: skeleton, zombie, etc. Each entry would have about a one paragraph "comparative bestiary" summary of what was shared, phenomenologically, mythomorphically, by each type. Then there could be a pretty rocking "monster generator" mechanic as an appendix! Nothing like Saturday afternoon pipe-dreaming. That's actually what you already have in the LBB's. What's nice about this model is that it doesn't have to follow cultural or literary myth at all. You can completely make your creatures unique to your campaign. Pick an archetype and run with it. Rename, reskin, redefine. The downside to using archetypes is that they can sometimes get muddied. Some creatures can fit in more than one type and other creatures do not seem to fit any typical types. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 29, 2016 14:54:25 GMT -6
That's actually what you already have in the LBB's. What's nice about this model is that it doesn't have to follow cultural or literary myth at all. You can completely make your creatures unique to your campaign. Pick an archetype and run with it. Rename, reskin, redefine. The downside to using archetypes is that they can sometimes get muddied. Some creatures can fit in more than one type and other creatures do not seem to fit any typical types. Derv, I read you. At a fundamental level I agree with you. That is exactly what is great about "Monsters and Treasures" vs. "The Monster Manual." Still, I mean some kind of a well thought out and researched "comparative bestiary" would help to avoid the downsides you are talking about. With a little extra knowledge and description of why monsters are grouped together, why some could go into more than one category, should help the creative ref to avoid the muddling. At least that is what I am getting at. |
|
