D&D Does (Did) Know What Monsters Are

Talysman, over at Nine and Thirty Kingdoms, has highlighted a post over at Throne of Salt which makes the claim that D&D doesn't know what monsters are.  Their conclusion is that monsters should be a symptom that somewhere, somehow the world has gone seriously wrong and that the way D&D does monsters fails in this regard. 

Now, I cannot speak about later editions of the game (though I can believe this of 5e, which seems to have forgotten how to teach players how to play the game), but I can speak for 1e. The MM1 was one of my very first purchases when I got into the hobby, and I spent many hours as a kid being inspired by what was depicted therein. I can, without hesitation, say that the MM1 explicitly and implicitly depicts monsters as symptoms of something gone horribly wrong.

Take the entry on the Bulette:

 The bulette (or landshark) was thought to be extinct until recently when this horror reappeared. It was a result of a mad wizard's experimental cross breeding of a snapping turtle and armadillo with infusions of demons' ichor.

Some idiot magic-user went and pulled a Frankenstein, but we took care of it. What? The monster is still out there? Who has been mucking with magics that shouldn't be messed around with?

Or, how about the Ghoul:

Ghouls are “undead” once human creatures which feed on human and other corpses. Although their change from human to ghoul has deranged and destroyed their minds, ghouls have a terrible cunning which enables them to hunt their prey most effectively.

Couple this with the entry on Ghasts, which boast an Intelligence of 11-12, you have the makings of a cult that seeks to cheat death through cannibalism. While functionally undead, these creatures are actually human.

Of course, there is the Owlbear:

The horrible owlbear is probably the result of genetic experimentation by some insane wizard.

Those pesky wizards, trying to play God in their towers, churning all kinds of vile things into the world. 

My favorite examples, though, are statements like this one, under Hobgoblin:

If elves are nearby, hobgoblins will attack them in preference to any other troops because of the great hatred they bear.

Similar statements can be found under kobolds, blinkdogs and displacer beasts. These statements invite us to imagine why such hatred exists in the first place — something is terribly wrong and these monsters are personifications of it.

So, for those of us who want to have archetypal evil in our FRPG worlds with monsters who personify sin, D&D has done us right since at least 1979.

Gamer ADD: Monster Manual II Part 1

A few years ago, I did a series of posts based around the idea of seeing what would happen to Moldvay’s Basic D&D if the Fiend Folio had been the source of all the monsters instead of the more traditional ones found in the Monster Manual and the monster section of my favorite version of D&D.

As happens when I start thinking about gaming and actually gaming, my brain jumps from one idea to another in what can only be described as Gamer Attention Deficit Disorder. I was recently thumbing through the Monster Manual II in search of inspiration for some 5e monsters, when my brain began to think on the possibility of repeating the aforementioned exercise with the MMII instead of the FF.

What makes this possibility interesting to me is that the MMII has always been my least favorite of all the monster manuals. This is in part because I did not buy it upon release in hopes that I could be surprised as a player when new monsters came crawling out of the woodwork. Unfortunately, so much of the work in the MMII is derivative that I only found myself disappointed rather than surprised.

When I finally got my hands on one, I found that the collection was as boring and disappointing as I’d feared. Like its predecessors, the MMII has an overarching theme. The MMI is chuck full of mythological and literary monsters. The FF has a definite sci-fi vibe to it. The MMII is an expansion of Gygax’s underdark and planar cosmology. Whereas I am a huge fan of mythology and the literature of science fiction and fantasy, I have no love for either Gygax’s version of the underdark or the various D&D planes. Indeed, when I am world building, these are two concepts that are left on the cutting room floor almost every time.

As a result, I don’t find any really iconic monsters in the MMII that demand entire campaigns or even adventures to be structured around. I am constantly fighting the the preconceptions that come with the theme: the underdark and the planes. If experience has taught me anything when it comes to D&D, however, it is that there are many hidden gems within even the most familiar of texts.

Therefore, I am actually looking forward to this series of posts. I can’t wait to find those gems that I have passed by all these years because of my own disdain for the MMII.

Ecology of the Hobgoblin

I don’t know about you, but I have long felt that the hobgoblin is the most neglected of all the “primary” goblinoid races. They just feel like an afterthought. This has also long bothered me because of all the various humanoids and goblinoids that exist in the game of D&D, hobgoblins are my favorite. This is in large part due to the way they are depicted in the MM1, especially the illustration that looks kinda like this:

Due to this rendering, I have always thought of hobgoblins as having an altogether different order of civilization and culture than other goblinoids. Recently, I have been meditating upon the ecology of the hobgoblin and had an epiphany, which I’d rather like to share.

First things first, in order to understand some of my basic assumptions about goblinoids in general and hobgoblins in particular, please refer to my previous ramblings on Elves and Dwarves.

These assumptions seem to be supported by the MM1 description. Note that, like goblins in Holmes who attack dwarves on sight (thus suggesting their dwarven ancestry), hobgoblins “will attack [elves] in preference to any other troops.” Thus, hobgoblins are twisted elves.

One quirk of the MM1 hobgoblin that I have always found fascinating is the fact that they can speak the rudimentary tongue of carnivorous apes and that 60% of hobgoblin lairs will have carnivorous apes as guards. Note also their baboon-like physical description:

The hairy hides of hobgoblins range from reddish-brown to gray black. Their faces are bright red-orange to red. Large males will have blue-red noses.

Given these factors, the origin of how elves were twisted into hobgoblins seems to suggest itself — hobgoblins are the product of a breeding program that intermixes elves and carnivorous apes. The majority of hobgoblins seem to continue this rather disturbing process. This explains the necessity to speak the language of carnivorous apes and the close relationship they have with them. It also suggests a reason why hobgoblins prefer to attack elves above all other troops — to capture more elven stock to interbreed with carnivorous apes in hopes of producing stronger strains of hobgoblin.

It is even possible to imagine, due to the arcane nature of elves, that such experimentation has resulted in such ape-like monsters as girallons. Considering the fact that the MM1 gives hobgoblins Average intelligence instead of the typical goblinoid Average (low), it is possible to imagine that the entire hobgoblin culture centers around a quest for some kind of eugenic ideal that they are continually refining through their interbreeding with carnivorous apes and the offspring of carnivorous apes and the occasional elven captive.

There, I hope that helps folks see that the hobgoblin can be more than merely a bigger goblin.