|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 17, 2010 19:53:01 GMT -6
From pages 9 and 10 of Monsters & Treasure:
"Any man-type killed by a Ghoul becomes one."
"Men-types killed by Wights become Wights."
"Men-types killed by Spectres become Spectres under the control of the one who made them."
"Men-types killed by Vampires become Vampires under the control of the one who made them."
The obvious question is: What are "men-types"? I submit that the answer is given on pages 5-7 of Monsters & Treasures:
"There are several categories of men:" Then they are detailed by type:
bandits
berserkers
brigands
dervishes
nomads
buccaneers
pirates
cavemen
mermen
Note that dwarves, elves, and hobbits are not included!
One more thing: If demi-humans were intended to be included by the words "men-types", the language would be more inclusive, rather like the charm person spell's description: "This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Jul 17, 2010 20:20:18 GMT -6
That's what my group assumed back in the day. It took something really nasty to turn an elf into a Banshee or a vampire.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 17, 2010 22:15:06 GMT -6
But you skip from "men-types" to "men". Only Men may be clerics, but all playable races detailed in volume I would be men-types.
If Gary had meant only men, he would have only said men. But he said men-types.
I submit that this is any creature with one hit die, or thereabouts.
A Hobbit would be a "man-type". So would a goblin.
(And as far as banshee's go, they always come from elves. At least according to legend...)
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 17, 2010 22:46:39 GMT -6
You could be right, coffee. I love the ambiguity found in so many places in the original rules. It is fertile ground for diverse, imaginative development.
That said, I like to think that "bandit" is a man-type, "nomad" is a man-type, etc. But not dwarves, etc.
|
|
Arminath
Level 4 Theurgist
WoO:CR
Posts: 150
|
Post by Arminath on Jul 18, 2010 13:10:27 GMT -6
We always assumed 'men-types' were man-sized humanoid creatures - the usual PC races as well as the humanoids. Nothing scares the hell out of a party than seeing elven zombies in a dark, twisted wood or dwarven ghouls in an abandonded dwarven mine rumored to have come under a curse...
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Jul 18, 2010 13:52:01 GMT -6
Why restrict undead to men and demi-humans? Why not zombie rats or ghoul-ish spiders, or other such undead versions of regular monsters?
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jul 18, 2010 14:04:30 GMT -6
Anthing is possible, but I admit with Geoffrey there's sometimes doubts in lbbs how dwarves and elve stand in relationship with humans - which make them more mysterious and magical. A possibility would be to have dwarves and elves undeads but NO hobbit. Because they're not listed in the raise dead spell... one a hobbit is dead, he's dead  The otehr good point raised by Geoffrey is that men are : bandits berserkers brigands dervishes nomads buccaneers pirates cavemen mermen ... and nothing else! That's an handsome world, where all men fall into these categories |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 18, 2010 22:01:14 GMT -6
That said, I like to think that "bandit" is a man-type, "nomad" is a man-type, etc. But not dwarves, etc. And you're completely free to think so. Just as I'm free to think that there is a qualitative, semantic difference between "man-type" and "type of man". Checking the encounter tables in volume III, I notice that Mermen are listed under Men. So are red and green martians! Elves and Dwarves, however, are listed under Giant Types. I don't profess to know what Gary meant when he wrote that. I just know that in my mind, anybody who fights like a man (i.e.; as opposed to an animal or a creature); someone who wears armor and wields a weapon, is a "man-type" close enough for wargaming purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 19, 2010 6:23:19 GMT -6
Like most things in the LBBs, there's plenty of evidence to suggest multiple interpretations. I don't think it's at all clear that "men-types" doesn't include dwarves, elves, and hobbits, though it's certainly a defensible reading of the text. As Coffee rightly points out, viewing the term from a wargaming perspective suggests that "men-types" ought to be an expansive term equivalent to "humanoid." Likewise, the LBBs' categorizations are often haphazard, with dwarves, gnomes, and elves being included under the heading "giant types" in Volume 3, which I don't think was intended to suggest that they were taller and larger than Men.
Short of finding an outright statement one way or the other, there's probably no clear answer to this question and I agree that one of the joys of OD&D is the multiple ways its text can be read. Given that, I think we need to be wary of offering up any reading as the reading without qualification. (And while it's far from definitive, it's interesting to note that the Monster Manual, which is still very compatible with OD&D as others have long noted, is inconsistent on this point, with some undead, such as ghouls and wights, being human-derived and others, such as vampires and wraiths, being humanoid-derived, so it's a question that D&D never really clarifies.)
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 19, 2010 9:58:49 GMT -6
I agree with Coffee. Essentially anything assigned a "Man type" rating in Chainmail counts. Thus, orcs, goblins, kobolds, gnolls, elves, dwarves, etc. all count as "man types."
The following creatures are specified as having "man type" attacks and defenses in Chainmail itself (ie. they can be fought without using the Fantasy Combat table):
Hobbits, Sprites, Pixies, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, Kobolds, Elves Fairies, Orcs, Heroes, Super Heroes, Trolls, Ogres, Giants.
The DM would have to adapt to creatures not listed at all in Chainmail, using these above and notes in M&T as a reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 19, 2010 10:09:17 GMT -6
I think we need to be wary of offering up any reading as the reading without qualification. Exactly. These are my opinions; I never want to set myself up as the arbiter of the One True Waytm. Play how you want. It's your game now. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 19, 2010 10:30:31 GMT -6
Anthing is possible, but I admit with Geoffrey there's sometimes doubts in lbbs how dwarves and elve stand in relationship with humans - which make them more mysterious and magical. A possibility would be to have dwarves and elves undeads but NO hobbit. Because they're not listed in the raise dead spell... one a hobbit is dead, he's dead The otehr good point raised by Geoffrey is that men are : bandits berserkers brigands dervishes nomads buccaneers pirates cavemen mermen ... and nothing else! That's an handsome world, where all men fall into these categories Mermen!?! Everything else on that list is a human social group. So were Mermen being thought of here as regular humans (belegged and tailess) who happend to live under the sea and breath in water? Interesting.... |
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 19, 2010 10:35:47 GMT -6
Mermen!?! Everything else on that list is a human social group. So were Mermen being thought of here as regular humans (belegged and tailess) who happend to live under the sea and breath in water? Interesting.... Don't forget singing! There are legends of a merman with an incredible singing voice, named "Ethel". (g/d/r) |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jul 19, 2010 12:38:35 GMT -6
yes, absolutely. Here's the prince of mermen :  Various reference to mermen in M&T, in U&WA, in supp. II and in FFC let think mermen are not the tritonlike creature from AD&D. The most complete description is in blackmoor and nothing suggest they have a fishtail - but they could be related to lizardmen. There's some old thread here about that issue. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 19, 2010 18:26:13 GMT -6
Reminds me of a TV show from the seventies I very vaguely remember, called (I think) "Man from Atlantis"
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 19, 2010 19:16:35 GMT -6
Reminds me of a TV show from the seventies I very vaguely remember, called (I think) "Man from Atlantis" Yeah, it was a short-lived sci-fi series starring Patrick Duffy of Dallas fame as an Atlantean who worked for an undersea research agency. I don't remember much else about it beyond that. |
|
