The Súccarath

The succarath is an animal appearing in bestiaries as early as 1558. It is described as native to Patagonia (the southern tail of South America).

Why bury the dead when undead exist?

A question I came across is "why does anyone bury the dead when undead are around?" Which is actually quite a reasonable question to ask. You would think that if undead are a problem then people would not leave bodies around to reanimate. So what keeps people building cemeteries and tombs and so forth?

In order to answer these questions, I had to devise a cosmology that departs from the incoherent D&D standard. Instead of souls passing to the outer planes, they enter the shadowfell and retain a connection to their bodies even after death. The souls of the dead are not disconnected from the living world, but connected to it. This forms the basis of ancestor worship and respect for the dead.

Cemeteries and tombs and such exist for the psychological comfort of the deceased. As spiritual beings, the dead may actively benefit from spiritual activities. Offerings of food, goods, servants, etc provide a benefit to their afterlives in the shadowfell. If the dead aren't properly appeased, then they haunt the living. Naturally, they'll look very unkindly on any adventurers who go around robbing graves. (In my setting, adventurers are murderous hobos, mercenaries, looters and generally bad people that sometimes believe themselves to be heroic because medieval morality is not modern morality.)

Cremation is an option but, as you can probably guess, necromancers will compensate by developing spells that can raise soldiers from ashes. Read about the "essential salts" from the stories of Charles Dexter Ward and Necroscope some time. Necromancy isn't some quick and easy path to zombie apocalypses, either. It involves either building a rapport with the dead, or summoning demons to possess their corpses. If you're going around enslaving the dead, then they will hate you. In order to maintain an army that doesn't hate your guts, you need to devote effort to making the dead follow you willingly.

But I digress.

Occult magic as wisdom-based arcane magic?

While reading the comparison between psionics and occult magic in Psionics Augmented: Occult, something occurred to me. Occult magic, at least as depicted by Pathfinder: Occult Adventures, feels a lot like what I would imagine a Wisdom-based arcane spell-caster would work. It simply doesn't feel different enough in theme to qualify as a third power source for magic equivalent to arcane and divine.

The occult magic system is based on the 19th century occult revival. This involved a lot of Victorian Age pseudo-science and secular magic like orgones, mesmerism, spiritualism, etc. This wasn't based on what d20 labels Intelligence ("how well your character learns and reasons"), but more on what it labels Wisdom ("willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"). Occultists developed their craft through intuition, not respectable science. The new rules like thought and emotion components and sentimental substitution rely on qualities ascribed to Wisdom, not the qualities ascribed to Intelligence.

Furthermore, the playtest for the second edition of Pathfinder changed the bard to an occult caster as part of its reorganization of the spell lists into arcane (sorcerer/wizard), divine (cleric), occult  and primal (druid). Yet, oddly enough, the occult bard still uses standard material, somatic, and verbal components and still relies on their charisma for casting spells.

Therefore, the occult magic seems like it would work just as well if not better as a Wisdom-based form of arcane magic. IMO, the psychic makes perfect sense as a new arcanist class existing somewhere between sorcerer and wizard but beholden to neither. But if I am honest, all of this is essentially arbitrary to begin with.

Tribes of the centaurs, part 4: the beautiful centaurs

The callicantzaros (plural callicantzari) is a kind of fairy goblin in Balkan folklore with some similarities to vampires. It is included in this series because its name is speculated to derive from kalos-kentauros meaning "beautiful centaur," although this etymology is hotly contested.

Harpy variants

I wanted to do post(s) on harpies. To start with, I'll list some harpy variants from 3pp.

• Exotic Encounters: Harpies: miniature harpy, hag harpy, abyssal harpy
• Slayer's Guide to Harpies: Celaeno ("screamer"), Nicothoe ("eagle harpy"), Ocypete ("swift harpy"), and Podarge ("owl harpy")
• Monster Menagerie: Kith of the Harpy Queen: cave harpy, glory harpy, chosen of pazuzu, pestilence harpy, piasa, storm harpy
• Legendary Races: Harpy: civilized harpy, Harpidite, Vortex Harpy, Reaper Harpy, Feaster Harpy, Famine Harpy
• Creature Collection Revised: scythe harpy

In future posts I hope to address the mythology and ecology of the harpy.

Is it wrong to animate dead?

In the past I’ve posted long dissertations on the morality of the undead and the shadowfell. In general, I have felt that the morality would vary by campaign setting and GM discretion.

Another idea I had involved a different take on the afterlife. In my post on the cosmology of my head-canon setting, I said most people who die pass to the shadowfell rather than the outer planes. When revived, their soul likewise returns from there. The shadowfell serves as the mythological underworld and occult spirit world.

To explain why people in-setting have such a visceral reaction to the undead, I decided to adopt a model of the soul based on real world mythology. Rather than being totally disconnected from their bodies, the dead retain a connection to their bodies. They can essentially scry using this connection, even interact with their living relatives without leaving the shadowfell. In extreme cases, they can enter and reanimate their own corpses, such as to defend their tomb from robbers or help protect the necroscope. Temporal parameters vary from manifestation to manifestation.

So, among other things, the spell speak with dead actually communicates with the soul of the deceased and not just an impression. Even if the soul is far away enjoying (or not) their afterlife, this operates like a long-distance phone call. This also explains why societies, as in real life, develop complex practices regarding mourning the dead even long after the funeral: the dead benefit from such treatment, like consuming offerings, being guardian angels, etc. 

The reason why animating the dead, at least without their consent anyway (they can give consent, or have reason to animate themselves a la BoED’s deathless), is so taboo is because the dead know it and may become upset with such treatment. To prevent the dead from rebelling, you have to enslave their soul too even if it isn’t providing the animating force. (This opens a lot of plot hooks too, such as a lost soul begging you to kill the vampire demon animating their corpse.)

So you can only have good necromancers if they have a positive social rapport with the dead. Otherwise it’s no different from enslavement. That said, there are definitely societies with state-sanctioned necromancy where people sell their corpses as slaves. Even though the dead are aware of what going on, they’re still dead. Backbreaking labor loses most of its unpleasantry when your body no longer feels pain or thirst.

That’s the gist of it. I might explore this further in future posts, but I don’t know if I find it interesting enough at present. I had enough of a headache trying to make sense of the many inconsistent ways that soul loss is handled.

Condensing the merfolk

D&D and derivatives have a lot of merfolk races: merfolk, merrow, adaro, ceratioidi, Cecilia, deep merfolk, etc. Do we really need all these different races? So I got an idea inspired by reading about the merfolk in another game Changeling: The Dreaming.

Instead of all these races being different, they are actually the same. Bear with me for a moment. Merfolk children would start out as having legs, like the tritons or aquatic elves. When they reach young adulthood or whatever, they undergo a right of passage ceremony. They find some mystical creche or something, and enter it where they will merge with another sea creature that becomes their lower half. Merging with a bony fish would result in the standard merfolk, a shark in adaro, an octopus in Cecilia, etc.

Since there are stereotypes associated with the animal aspect, this results in the merfolk being segregated a la high school cliques. Since land lubbers wouldn't know how merfolk come to be, they would mistakenly think all these different lower halves were different races. Thus providing the fluff you read in the bestiaries.

Fishmen, those with permanent legs, are a whole other deal. Even so, I wouldn't mind letting merfolk temporarily replace their tail with legs for forays on land a la Splash or The Little Mermaid.

Appearance of the manticore

In my prior post on the manticore in art history, I explained that the manticore has appeared in popular culture with wildly diverse features. What follows is some general descriptions I wrote a long time ago. I'm not sure what to do with it, so I'll present it here as inspiration maybe.

Tritons are merfolk

Although D&D depicts tritons as fish people who emigrated from the plane of water, in mythology they were merfolk. Triton was a sea god, with the tritons as his followers. They were the satyrs of the sea. In later medieval bestiaries, tritons were described as monstrous mermen.

©1998 Jonathan Hunt, Bestiary

“Tritons were half-human, half-fish creatures with scales covering their torsos, fish-like tails, and sharp teeth and claws. They spent much of their time carousing, riding the wave tops, and blowing their conch shell trumpets. Tritons often changed their tails into legs so they could spend part of their long lives among humans.” 

—Jonathan Hunt, Bestiary (1998)

Links

• https://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Triton.html
• https://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Tritones.html
• https://www.theoi.com/Thaumasios/Tritones.html
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Triton

Umlautia

Throughout this blog I’ve alluded to an imagined campaign setting that addresses the problems I have with D&D’s backwards worldbuilding. I’ve finally decided to start detailing that setting instead of just complaining. I chose the placeholder name Umlautia, as a dig at amateur fantasy settings that casually use umlauts without understanding how umlauts work.

When building Umlautia, I want to address a few important and interlinked concepts: planes of existence, theology (gods and demons), power sources for character classes, and monster taxonomy. Unless these neatly fit together, the world building will fall apart under scrutiny as in standard D&D.

My inspirations include Eberron and Scarred Lands, which are some of the most detailed and rational settings in the history of the game. So I have to take notes from the greats. The highest mention goes to Nentir Vale, which at least tried to rationalize D&D before getting thrown out with the bathwater in 5e, providing the basis for my adjustments.

Cosmology

In order to world build rationally, I need to pin down the workings of cosmology, theology and taxonomy in my game.

Having a bazillion different planes is needlessly confusing, so I settled on a variation of the omniverse cosmology mentioned in the DMG. There are only a handful of planes and each will be detailed sufficiently that they will be interesting to visit.

The planes of Umlautia are limited to the material, feywild, shadowfell, ethereal sea, elemental chaos, upper, and lower.

The material plane has a stupid name, because every plane is material. Under Umlautia, it has different names: world, mortal world, earth, earthly plane, middle earth, midgard, tellurian, etc. This is the plane in which we humans live.

The feywild is known by names like fairyland, faerie, otherworld, alfheim, tir na nog, avalon, etc. It is based on the fairylands of English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh mythology. This plane is the abode of the fair folk. Time and space have different meanings here.

The shadowfell is known as the underworld, xibalba, helheim, diyu, yomi, irkalla, sheol, etc. It is based on the underworlds of world mythology. This plane is the abode of the dead and some demons. Most people who die end up here.

The ethereal sea condenses the astral and ethereal planes. Its inspiration in popular culture is the astral plane of occultism and the dreamlands of Lovecraft. Everyone projects their mind here while they sleep, and may train to project while awake.

The elemental chaos is known as ginnungagap, muspelheim, niflheim, chaos, void, tiamat, apsu, etc. It is based on the primordial chaos of many ancient mythologies, but especially on the nine worlds of Norse mythology. This is the abode of elementals and giants, leftovers from creation.

The upper planes are known as heaven, olympus, valhalla, tian, elysian fields, blessed isles, etc. It is based on the heavens, godly realms, and pleasant afterlives of world mythology. This is the abode of gods, angels, and heroes. Only the greatest of dead souls are allowed to enter.

The lower planes are known as hell, perdition, the abyss, tartarus, naraka, etc. It is based on the various hells of world mythology. This is the abode of demons, imprisoned titans, and the damned. Only the wickest souls are consigned here.

Cosmogony

Unpacking the theology is where things get harder. I need to devise a creation myth to explain why the cosmology is arranged, who the gods are, where spellcasters get their powers from, etc. This is where the Nentir Vale’s dawn war is a useful shorthand, since it recycles the recurring motifs of creation myths across the world. Many custom settings like Fumanor, Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Legend, etc independently come up with similar ideas, showing how archetypal these motifs are.

Long story short, there was a war or two between two or three generations of deities. One side (titans, primordials, jotun, vanir, tiamat/apsu, etc) represented chaos, the other (olympians, aesir, annunaki, igigi, etc) order. This resulted in the creation of the planes and additional generations of deities. The chaos powers lost and their leaders were killed or imprisoned in the lower planes.

Nentir Vale further specifies that both sides are prevented from mucking the world by primal spirits, who empower druids and barbarians. (These are comparable to the primordials, vanir, firbholg, etc from mythologies.)

Fumanor posits that the chaos powers created demons and order created devils to compete (channeling Moorcock’s law/chaos mythos). I would take a page from Exalted and posit that the archfiends are the imprisoned titans, who created the demons willfully or otherwise.

Essentially I’m just copying Indo-European, Mesopotamian and Chinese folk mythology wholesale.

Theology

I really like Eberron’s agnostic approach to deities, so I intend to go with that rather than try to detail a pantheon I’d never be able to keep track of and write myself into corners. However, I still need to detail power sources. Where do spellcasters get their power? What distinguishes them? This ties a bit into theology by forcing me to at least divide the agnostic pantheon into power sources.

So my setting includes the 4e power sources like martial for fighters and rogues, arcane for sorcerers and wizards, divine for clerics and oracles, primal for druids and barbarians, etc. In my setting, martial arts channels vis (Latin equivalent of ki) so that fighters can accomplish weaboo fightan magic.

One of the theology discrepancies has been distinguishing between clerics, druids, and warlocks without half-measures. The divine power source draws from the gods (olympians, aesir, etc), the primal from the primal spirits (vanir, firbholg, 2nd gen titans, primordials, etc). Warlock patrons are drawn from other pantheons, not the same as the clerics and druids.

In addition to the gods and primal spirits, other pantheons include the archfiends (who replace evil gods), the fairy lords, the remaining primordials, and so forth. Each pantheon is associated with one of the planes: the gods with the upper planes (and the judge-gods of the dead with the shadowfell), the primal spirits with the world, the archfiends/titans with the lower planes, the primordials with the elemental chaos, the fairy lords with the feywild, etc. 

But how do these additional pantheons relate to one another and the titanomachy? Burrowing from mythology again: the titans fought for chaos and became the archfiends, the gods fought for order, the primordials/primals allied with the gods, the fairy lords remained neutral, etc. 

Nothing complicated. I can iron out the details later, what matters is the simple symmetry and easy tracking.

Taxonomy

Lastly, I need to figure out how the monster types from the MM fit into the cosmology. For the most part this is easy, but some types are difficult. I already went over my problems with the types in general a while ago, so I won’t repeat myself here.

The types of celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, and undead easily map to the upper planes, elemental chaos, feywild, lower planes, and shadowfell.

The dragons and giants are simple enough to explain as the children of the primordials, as they are in mythology.

The aberration type doesn’t fit. The closest I could figure is that it includes the furthest parts of primordial chaos, who never took part in the creation of the planes. Like the Fair Folk in Exalted.

The monstrosity type never made sense to begin with, being a meaningless catchall, so I’m fine with discarding it entirely.

Conclusion

So, generally speaking, each plane has an associated pantheon, monster type and power source. The upper plane has the godly pantheon, the celestial monster type, and the divine power source. I can iron out the details later, but that’s the gist of it. I find this a lot easier to work with than the unwieldy great wheel of canon.

Revisiting the manticore

I think manticores in D&D suffer from two problems.

1. First is that typical fantasy ecology articles make a point to claim that the manticore is some unnatural abomination probably created by a mad wizard. In reality, medieval and early modern zoologists believed that the manticore was a real and wholly natural animal. That will be the subject of the current post.
2. Second is that the manticore varies wildly in appearance across historical and modern art, as I explored in my prior post on the manticore's art history. The monster manuals treat them as a race of identical clones, making them predictable and boring in my opinion. So I thought I would change things up a bit by making them diverse. That will be the subject of a following post.

There have already been multiple ecologies written for the manticore, so I will generally restrict myself to the differences I made. More info below the break.

Unorthodox liches

We should all be familiar with D&D liches. They are high-level undead spellcasters that keep their soul in a phylactery that resurrects them upon death until destroyed.

There have been numerous lich variants over the years, though most have rarely received much attention. Death knights, mummy lords, and similar are often described as lich variants, and many undead have similar rejuvenation traits. Lich variants have included elemental flavors like fire or shadow, psychic liches, spectral liches, benevolent liches, new kinds of phylacteries such as familial possession or astral projections or swarms of worms, enhanced liches, servant liches, dismembered/weakened liches, lich variants for other classes like thief or bardic, failed lich transformations, etc.

Playable liches are almost unheard of, though third party supplements like The Complete Guide to Liches, Lords of the Night: Liches, and Dweomercraft: Lich have certainly tried. I admire that the way to distinguish good and evil liches is that, as typically enumerated by most sources, the former serve the source of creation whereas the latter are conduits to the void that eat souls.

The WIP 3pp supplement "Our Undying Neighbors" intends to provide a progression for undead monsters. Undead monsters would advance through the different ranks as their HD increased, such as a zombie evolving into a wight evolving into a lich evolving into a spectral lich. (An idea that I really like and intend to use myself in the future.) The prospective (as of this writing) progression table includes qualifiers for rank and physical quality, if not class. The "liche" only appears starting at the rank of "lord" and indicates a point at which several tracks merge together (thus removing the distinction between different levels of decomposition).

As I have mentioned before, the word lich is an archaic English word for "corpse". It was traditionally used in compounds including lich-stone, lich-gate, lich-yard, lich-field, lich-owl, lich-house, etc. The reason it appears in fantasy gaming as a highly specific monster is simple. Clark Ashton Smith used it in his Averoigne setting to refer to corpses, animated or not. In some stories, "Empire of the Necromancers" (1936) and "The Sword of the Sorcerer" (1969), it was used to described an undead necromancer. This was read by Gygax and co. Not knowing what the word lich actually meant since it was archaic, Gygax and co though it referred only to an undead necromancer. From there it was combined with the story of Koschei the Deathless to create the fantasy gaming monster.

In German translations of D&D, lich is translated as Leichnam rather than Leich, since the latter still means corpse in modern German. Leichnam is a respectful way to refer to corpses, analogous to the English phrase "the deceased." Its archaic English cognate is lichame, a combination of lich and hame ("afterbirth, covering, horse collar"). I don't understand why anyone would refer to vile undead monsters so respectfully, unless this is meant to either indicate their higher status relative to other undead (unlikely) or is a euphemism intended to avoid invoking them/their wrath a la referring to the fair folk as the "kindly ones."

Harry Potter has magical objects similar to phylacteries called "horcrux." The etymology of the word isn't clear (given Rowling's love of etymology and neologisms), but it might be a combination of the French hors ("outside") and English crux ("central or essential point"). In this sense, it would refer to how the soul (the essential point) is literally outside of its owner. I prefer this word over phylactery, as the latter is already a dictionary word referring to small leather boxes that hold Hebrew prayer texts.

Since being revived by Gygax, the word lich has gone on to gain old and new meanings due to natural linguistic drift. As tvtropes attests, various writers and commentators have used it to mean:

• anybody with a soul jar or similar means of immortality (e.g. has a horcrux, ring of power, bloodline possession, etc) even if they aren't undead, a la Koschei the Deathless, Dorian Grey, Voldemort, or Sauron and his ring-wraiths
• any manner of undead magic-user even without a soul jar (e.g. Afgorkon from "The Sword of the Sorcerer"), any undead in leadership (e.g. the Horned King in Disney’s The Black Cauldron), any intelligent undead (e.g. death knights and mummies are oft-described as variant liches), or any reanimated corpses (as in The Death of the Necromancer, Hawk And Fisher, Wise Phuul, Lord of the Isles, among others)

Given the existing diversity of liches within fantasy gaming, at least if you count all those obscure supplements, I see little reason why these lich variants could not be integrated into gaming too. Using lich in a general sense for reanimated corpses may give a faux Anglo-Saxon or pulp genre feel to a campaign, if desired. Although in that case you would need a new set of terminology to distinguish liches. You would need to make it clear to players that the word is being used in this way, to avoid confusing those who rely on metagame knowledge.

So we would need distinct terms to distinguish whether the "lich" in question was living, undead, mindless, intelligent, and/or soulless, as well as what class they had. The great thing about language is that meanings may be distinguished through context or by adding qualifiers, and lich in particular has a well-worn history as part of compounds.

A "lich" could refer to any reanimated corpse, like zombies controlled by necromancy. A living person with a horcrux would be a "lich" in a further generalized sense of a body rather than a specifically dead body. Although they are not clinically dead, their body is a soulless body.

Compound titles like lich-knight, lich-mage, lich-priest, etc would indicate the class of the undead creature in question. In the case of a lich-mage, lich-priest, or similar it may be ambiguous whether that named is itself a lich or a necromancer. English doesn't seem well-suited to distinguishing nuances like that, but I will try anyway. Perhaps, a "lich's mage" is a mage dealing with liches (i.e. a necromancer) whereas a "lichly mage" is an undead mage.

Distinguishing different ranks of undead could take the form of compound titles such as lich-slave (i.e. zombie), lich-squire, lich-lord, lich-beast, etc. Or however "Our Undying Neighbors" denotes its ranking progression table: e.g. rotting corpse, rotting wight, rotting master, liche lord, liche elder, liche ancient.

Distinguishing whether a creature has a horcrux or not could be distinguished by an adjective like "horcruxified." Although, as I said above, there are plenty of undead with a means of rejuvenation such as death knights, mummies, ghosts, etc. Horcruxes aren't especially unique. (Creature Collection Revised introduced an entire family of undead templates with class affinities whose shtick was that they kept rejuvenating, called the "Unhallowed.")

Long story short, the only "problem" here is using the word lich to exclusively refer to a high level undead wizard with a horcrux, as opposed to using it in a general faux Anglo-Saxon sense that could apply to any undead and soulless living people. If you are using it in that sense, then you have to both rename the standard D&D lich to something else and inform your players that your setting works this way. If you're just writing fantasy fiction without preconceived notions, then you don't need to make that provision.

Chimera part 2: fantasy gaming

As established in part 1, chimeras have appeared in a variety of body plans. Fantasy games have tried to incorporate these variations as distinct monsters of their own.

In Dungeons & Dragons

The chimera was typed as a "dragon-kin" in the Rules Cyclopedia, but its relation to dragons remains questionable across editions as it was never again typed as a dragon.

The standard D&D chimera uses a "Society" body plan with dragon's wings. The dragon head is a red dragon by default. Oddly enough, the chimera cannot have another color for said head. Instead, that is restricted to a different species related to chimera known as a dracimera. The dracimera is either a different species, a crossbreed of a chimera and another dragon, or a different species descended from crossbreeding. (Pathfinder removed this distinction, allowing chimeras to have variable colored dragon heads.)

There were also other variants of the chimera. The gorgimera replaces the goat head with a gorgon and gains the ability to exhale petrifying gas.

3e introduced a “chimerical creature” template that allowed GMs to replace the lion portion with another creature. For example, the mantimera replaces the lion with a manticore and gains the manticore's spiked tail attack.

The thessalmera appeared in the entry on thessalmonsters, being a combination of thessalhydra and chimera. It replaced the goat's head with a giant maw and gained a mane of thessalhydra heads.

Mantimera, Shining South ©Wizards of the Coast

In third party products

Monster Encyclopaedia II featured a family of monsters called the chimae, with its members includinv the lion chimae and ram chimae. They were giant snakes with the head of a lion and a ram, respectively. Their name suggested a relation the chimera, but this was never explained in the fluff.

Notes of the Wandering Alchemist included a post on re-skinning chimeras for environmental variants: "Re-skinning Monsters: Chimera Proof Of Concept."

Nerdarchy included articles on randomized chimeras and metallic chimeras.

Pathfinder

Pathfinder Bestiary includes the chimera by default and allows them to have any chromatic dragon head. It also mentions that the manticore is able to crossbreed with lions, lamias, chimeras and sphinxes. A half-manticore chimera, lamia or sphinx gains the manticore's spiked tail attack, but is otherwise identical to their standard versions.

Classic Monsters Revisited provided some simple guidelines for chimera's environmental variants, replacing the goat and lion portions with animals from the current environment while leaving the statblock largely unchanged (aka reskinning). It featured the "legendary" chimera (modeled after the Hesiodic version) and "orthos" as more detailed chimera variants.

"EN World TRAILseeker #19: Chimeric Fusion" provided guidelines for creating tripartite chimeras from any three creatures. Twenty example aspects are provided, including "yeti, aboleth, spider, golem, and cobra."

Other

Mazes & Minotaurs introduces the "aberrant beast," which is the offspring of a chimera and another creature. In that game the standard chimera is the three-headed Hesiodic variety, whereas the aberrant beast resembles the single-headed Homeric variety.

13th Age featured the classic Lycian chimera, but specified that the chimera’s appearance fluctuated. Its body parts moved around daily and included bits of additional animals beyond the traditional lion, goat, and dragon. This allows its game traits to fluctuate, making it less predictable.

The OSR game Blood & Treasure introduced a set of tables for GMs to randomly generate their own chimeras.

Octopus Carnival included posts on "chimerae" and "snake-maned lion" for GURPS.

In video gaming

The Final Fantasy series of games features a huge variety of chimeras. Not only the classical lion-goat-dragon chimera, but chimeras including snakes, eagles, bulls, and more!

In future posts I'd like to explore the chimera variants in more detail...

Doppelganger and mimic variants

Doppelgangers and mimics are classic D&D monsters, infamous for pretending to be normal people and inanimate objects right before they attack. In various third-party bestiaries there are numerous variants that take on other forms like animals, swarms, buildings, and even equipment. By far my favorite is the suggestion that the two are actually members of the same species. It is entirely possible that other monsters like cloakers and trappers and such are mimics too, but I will be ignoring those for now.

Before I can devise an ecology for the doppelgangers and mimics, I first need to list the members of this monster family so that I can figure where they fit. A number of different variants were introduced in various supplements:

• The Complete Guide to Doppelgangers introduces the rustic doppelganger, urban doppelganger, doppelstadt, and gestalt mimic.
• Darkness Without Form: Secrets of the Mimic introduces the elder mimic, lair-tyrant, mimicling swarm, puppetmaster, and warhulk.
• Dragonstar System Reference Document introduces the doppel.
• Dungeon Denizens Revisited introduces the failed-apotheosis mimic and the mimic plasmoid.
• Exotic Encounters: Doppelgangers introduces the facestealer doppelganger, cursed doppelganger, and mind drinker doppelganger.
• Legends & Lairs: Twisted Lore introduces the feign beast.
• Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 5 introduces the doppeldrek.
• Tome of Beasts introduces the dune mimic and map mimic.

Although these appear to be many different variations, they may be generally condensed into a few recurring roles: those that mimic humanoids (e.g. doppelganger, elder mimic), those that mimic objects (e.g. mimic, map mimic, mimicling swarm), those that mimic terrain and buildings (e.g. doppelstadt, lair-tyrant, dune mimic) and those that mimic beasts and plants (e.g. doppeldrek, feign beast). They will generally vary in what they mimic based on their size and the environment to which they are adapted.

The life cycle varies according to which source you peruse:

• According to The Complete Guide to Doppelgangers, the doppelganger has a three-stage life cycle. The doppelganger is the "youth," the gestalt mimic is the "adult" (the dungeon mimic is an "orphan" severed from the gestalt), and the doppelstadt is the "elder." The Hidden Truth of Doppelgangers claims this is misinformation and that the dungeon mimic is the precursor to the doppelganger.
• According to Dungeon Denizens Revisited, mimics pass through three life stages: spore, plasmoid, and hunter (the stage typically encountered). The majority remain hunters, but some may advance into lair-tyrant, metamorphic scholar, and failed-apotheosis. According to Darkness Without Form, there is an additional stage of elder mimic. Presumably, metamorphic scholars that fail to advance into elder mimics become failed-apotheosis.

I posit that the life cycle isn't so linear. However, that will be left to a later post.

Miscellaneous links:

• http://filbypott.tumblr.com/post/116052462998/mimics-may-pass-through-six-distinct-lifephases
• http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-ecology-of-doppelganger.html
• https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/35iqcm/mimic/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/3kz6gb/doppelganger/
• http://greatalliancearchives.blogspot.com/2012/03/shapeshifter-doppelganger-mimic.html
• https://basalt-dnd.tumblr.com/post/157457036382/mimics-let-the-record-show-that-the-tyrant-is
• https://web.archive.org/web/20171123190700/http://www.headinjurytheater.com:80/article73.htm
• https://dmwordoftheweek.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/doppelganger/
• https://d-dplothooks.tumblr.com/post/137552709212/monster-mondays-5-the-doppelg%C3%A4nger
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Doppelganger
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Mimic
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001321/http://www.goodman-games.com/3000preview.php

Fantastical sea creatures

Medieval bestiaries often recount tales of fabulous sea creatures like sea-goats, sea-horses, sea-knights, sea-lions, and sea-monks. Back then it was believed everything on land had an equivalent in the sea. Such creatures were depicted in heraldry, too. The Encyclopedia of Beasts and Monsters in Myth, Legend and Folklore by Theresa Bane lists the sea-dog, sea goat, sea-gryphon, sea hog, sea monk, sea-satyr, sea serpent, sea-stag, sea wolf, and sea-wyvern, among others.

D&D also has a history of weird sea monsters, like the sea cat and seawolf. Sometimes these are accused of being excessively silly or stupid. I don't really care if they're considered silly. If D&D already has merfolk, a bazillion other marine monsters and a plane of water, then sea clergy are no big stretch.

In future posts I would like to explore the fantastical sea creatures in more detail, in both mythological and fantasy gaming contexts.

Flying polyp image inspirations

The flying polyp is a classic Lovecraftian monster. It appeared in D&D only two times I am currently aware of: Deities & Demigods 1e and a Pathfinder Bestiary. To celebrate my admiration, I present these radically different artistic depictions.

© Marco Caradonna

© Loïc Muzy

© J.G. Delica

© François Launet

© François Launet

Thoughts on the couatl

Couatls are celestial beings based on the Mesoamerican feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl.

By default they have a minimalist yet highly flexible background: they could be generic do-gooders, enemies of the rakshasa, scheming manipulators, dragons, angels, etc.

I like the idea of presenting couatls as the angels of Quetzalcoatl himself, or as outright gods themselves. (I'm not a fan of the idea of presenting "gods" as these abstract yet ridiculously over-detailed setting constants that are inexplicably beyond game statistics.)

I like the idea of presenting couatls as a type of dragon, too. (I'm not a fan of D&D's absurd anal-retentive taxonomy anyway.) Eberron presents couatls as related to feathered serpentfolk, which is a nice idea too.

Maybe they are related to the lillend? Friends or relatives? Master and servant? Since couatls can change shape, perhaps the lillend are one of the forms they typically assume?

Couatls have been presented as psionic monsters, alongside other celestials like the angels and shedu, oddly enough. In third edition, they are full-blown spellcasters or psionicists! (I'm not really a fan of laundry lists of spells. Difficult to track, really.)

The couatl isn't a very popular monster (like all goodly monsters), but it did manage to inspire a couple of variants in 3pp. Pathfinder in particular presented several different variants: auwaz couatl, chicome couatl, mix couatl, quetz couatl, tletli couatl, and xiuh couatl. The last is based on the Aztec Xiuhcoatl.

Although not evil in mythology, a couple of 3pp presented the xiuhcoatl as an evil fiery counterpart of the couatl. The "dark couatl" appears in Monster Encyclopaedia 2 - Dark Bestiary by Mongoose Publishing, and the "xiuhcoatl" appears in Bane Ledger by Bloodstone Press (pictured below).

Links

• https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/3evkjl/couatl/
• http://dailybestiary.blogspot.com/2011/10/couatl.html
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Couatl
• http://tao-dndwiki.blogspot.com/2018/04/couatl.html
• https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/couatl/

Reverse gorgon medusa

A rather hilarious art meme I found online is the “reverse gorgon” or “reverse medusa.” The gorgon Medusa was a woman with snakes for hair. The reverse is a snake with humans for hair or scales. Take a look:

Source by @sugardrini on Instagram

Source by Robin Harper Latkovich

Source by Hannah McGill

• According to Robin Harker Latkovich: "Reclusive by necessity, this beast is the opposite of its feared cousin in every way.  Tragically, upon gazing at anyone, the Reverse Medusa promptly turns to stone." 
• According to u/DarkBlueAnt, its gaze turns stone to flesh. 
• According to EatSleepDraw: "The Reverse Medusa is a snake that grows humans out of its head, and turns statues into people."

Nature spirits versus hidden folk

In mythology and folklore, there is an oft-vague distinction between hidden folk and nature spirits/deities. The hidden folk are much like humans in the way they live, but they typically live in secret places far from humans—sometimes in a fairyland like Jinnistan. Nature gods do not live anything like humans and typically play some vital role in maintaining the natural world—such as bringing the rain. The distinction between them can blur, especially since many myths and folktales may have been more metaphorical than literal. 

The christmas tree effect

So a commonly cited "problem" in fantasy gaming is that player characters eventually end up decked in a huge wardrobe of magic items. This was called the "Christmas tree effect" because the characters lit up like Christmas trees when you used detect magic on them.

You could argue that the Christmas tree effect is just an extension of how magic items always worked in fantasy. Frodo had an inherited mithril shirt, a (cursed, sentient) ring of invisibility, an inherited sword that glowed in the presence of orcs/goblins, a chameleon cloak made by elves, a vial of starlight gifted by the elf queen, and some really nourishing bread made by elves.

This makes sense as a gaming convention. The criticism arises from the fact that this usage of magic items makes them feel banal, bland, and boring when they should feel rare and fantastical. Which I guess might be a problem if you are aiming for a fantastical atmosphere. However, the game is written with the assumption that characters will have panoplies due to how the leveling works.

Writing a book with advice that magic items should be rare without changing the underlying assumptions of the system is dishonest. Getting rid of that would require overhauling the rules so that player characters would get the benefits of that panoply without actually having a physical panoply, allowing items to level up, etc.

Links

• http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495816-Christmas-tree-effect
• https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298929-Can-someone-explain-to-me-what-Christmas-Tree-effect-means
• https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/
• http://legacy.aonprd.com/unchained/magic/index.html

Lepus cornutus and other paraleporids

In cryptozoology and folklore, there are a number of different paraleporids. That is, hares and rabbits that display unusual features like antlers and feathers. Hence the name lepus cornutus, Latin for "horned hare," for many varieties.

Ecology of the abyssal larva

Larvae are fiendish petitioners in the D&D cosmology. Their exact ecology has varied in different editions. They are known by many names: abyssal larva, demonic larva, soul larva, soul maggot, soul worm, etc.

Demon brood idea: manalishi

As suggested by Mongoose Publishing's The Slayer's Guide to Demons and Encyclopaedia Arcane: Demonology, demons or fiends are divided into a number of broods (tags in D&D 5e rules). Each brood descends from a member of demonic royalty, and are named for their founder plus the suffix of -ka meaning "brood of." For example, the tanar'ka and are the brood of Tanar, the baate'ka are the brood of Baate, the yugo'ka are the brood of Yugo, and the tzaretch'ka are the brood of Tzaretch. Other broods named in the literature include the vang'ka (insectoid demons), jartas'ka (shadow demons), and nuyul'ka (mind worms).

I present another brood: manalishi'ka. The manalishi, or "scaly devils", are fiends with distinct reptilian features. They were originally introduced in OSRIC as an OGL substitute for the closed content abishai devils, although they were renamed to scaly devils in later reprintings. The name originates from the title of a song by Peter Green.

Garnfellow proposes that manalishi are dragon eggs transmuted into devils. I would go a step further and propose that the manalishi include a variety of other scaly fiends, like dorvae and lernaeati*. I've got tons of ideas for a draconic family tree but that's for another time.

*From Monsters of Porphyra. Called "savant hydras" in Creature Collection and "hydranoids" in Monster Geographica.

ADDENDUM 11/22/2019: In the Scarred Lands' Creature Collection series, reptilian devils like the savant hydra and heartclutch are the servants of the LE god Chardun created in mockery of his reptilian mother the titaness Mormo. I think I could take inspiration from them too.

Ecology of Hags

Hags are a mainstay of fairy tales across the world, not just the Brothers Grimm. As a trope hags have been called sexist for demonizing traditions of village wise women, although others would argue that they are intended to be malicious counterparts of said wise women. In D&D much of this subtlety and symbolism is lost in translation.

Doppelgängers & mimics the same?

D&D has a history of monsters whose shtick is to mimic other things: doppelgänger, mimic, etc. Quite logically, The Complete Guide to Doppelgängers posits that doppelgängers and mimics are different stages of the same species. This is such a fascinating idea that I have to borrow it. The two monsters have received plenty of variants in 3pp since that was published, which I would like to integrate. I don’t imagine that the two are linear stages: instead, I would write them as morphs that may be assumed due to environmental pressures. A mimic might mature into a doppelgänger or vice versa, then back again!

I will try to detail this further in future posts, with citations.

Undead level advancement

So a fascinating concept I saw posted on another blog, as well as presented in some GameLit of Japanese origin like Overlord and Tensei Slime, is the idea that the undead monsters are actually a hierarchy along which an individual monster evolves as its hit dice or challenge rating increases. (This can be applied to monsters in general, but that's another tangent.) I briefly touched on this in one of my previous undead taxonomy posts, but the "undead progression road map" expands this immensely beyond my own suggestions. For example, it posits the progression: ghoul → wight → vampire, as seen in the image below.

I don't know if I said so already, but I am definitely using ideas like this in my own world building!

An argument for dehumanizing orcs

I read a number of articles arguing in favor of the humanization of orcs. “Ecce Orcus!,” “God Hates Orcs,” “Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth,” etc.

I’m not going to get into a pointless argument about real world racist implications of fantasy tropes. Long story short, D&D is about killing shit and since killing people is morally wrong we use orcs as a convenient substitute to sublimate our own secret desires to kill real people in real life. Because humans are bastard covered bastards filled with creamy bastard filling.

If you want to treat monsters like people, then go read game literature like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime. Otherwise, I suggest a few options for dehumanizing orcs (and other subhumanoid races for that matter) even further.

One option, which I surely addressed in a past post years ago, is to obviate the problem of goblin babies, or orc babies in this case. Simple solution: there are no orc babies, women, or men for that matter. The exact method of reproduction isn’t important, just that there are no non-combatants to worry about killing.

The orks in Warhammer 40,000 are a perfect example. They are praised even by critics of orcs as a trope.

That still leaves half-orcs to deal with. To which I offer two options (but by no means exhaustive):

1. Half-orcs are an artificial race created with magic (or plagues, radiation, etc), or a natural human variant that occurs as a kind of immune response to the presence of orcs a la 13th Age.
2. Half-orcs are actually half-leonorc. Leonorcs are a planetouched race of leonine aasimar orcs from the 3pp Children of the Planes. They fit the new agey orc paladin stereotype to a tee. In fact, they could easily replace half-orcs entirely.

Lesser known varieties of planetouched

Let's face it: despite having five alignment poles of law, chaos, neutral, good and evil, the first three play second fiddle to the last two in traditional D&D. That's generally how it's always been. The most popular planetouched have been the tiefling, aasimar and genasi. Even so, other varieties of planetouched have been published in obscure supplements.

What follows is a list of planetouched I have seen published under the OGL, sorted by plane. I do not expect this list to be remotely exhaustive, but this is the only list I am aware of so far. It took a long time and a lot of effort to put this together for me. I also provide my personal commentary.

The dark folk

The "dark ones" or "dark folk" are humanoids that first appeared in the old Fiend Folio. They were converted to 3e by Tome of Horrors and from there they received a fair amount of expansion in other 3pp.

In 4e the dark folk were native to the Shadowfell, which may remain the case in 5e.

Pathfinder presents dark folk as humanoids with the (dark folk) tag, claims their ancient name for themselves if "caligni," endemic to the Darklands (Underdark), and explains that they worship shadow beings called "owb." Paizo seems to really like the dark folk.

Various supplements have introduced variants and related monsters:

• The Tome of Horrors series introduces the dark creeper, dark stalker, and huggermugger.
• The Pathfinder Bestiary series introduces the dark caller, dark dancer, dark empath, dark slayer, and the owb.
• Behind the Monsters: Dark Folk from Fat Goblin Games introduces the dark keeper.
• Monster Menagerie: Lurkers in the Dark from Rogue Genius Games introduces the dark dweomerthief, dark piper, dark reeker, dark regent, dark tatterdemalion, and dark hound.
• Creature Codex for 5th Edition from Kobold Press introduces the dark eye, dark servant, and dark voice.

The dark folk are a minor yet fascinating monster family, and I should like to explore them further in the future.

Beast lords and demon lords

D&D adopted the Beast Lords from the work of Moorcock. However, they saw very little use despite the prevalence of beastfolk races. Instead, these races generally served Demon Lords like Baphomet, Dagon, Pazuzu, and Tsathogga. Since I'm using a simplified omniverse cosmology rather than the deranged great wheel, most of these distinctions won't be necessary in my setting.

Since it would be an exercise in insanity to try making sense of Pathfinder's insane theology, I decided to use a simple solution: all of those "[demon/angel/whatever] lords" are titles, and I can simplify the pantheon by handing multiple titles to one deity.

For example: Chaos Lord of Entropy, Horseman of Death, and Grim Harvestman all fall into the Grim Reaper archetype, thus they are the same god or aspects/avatars of the same god.

In the case of the beast lords and demon lords, several of them will be conflated and simplified.

Ecology of the siren

In Greek mythology the sirens were three nymphs granted the power of flight by Demeter to find her daughter Persephone after Hades “abducted” her. They had beautiful voices that lured sailors to their deaths. Odysseus was the only man to survive hearing their song, which provoked them into committing suicide.

In fantasy gaming they’re fuckable. Despite being human-headed birds. I find it all a bit silly, but what are you gonna do?

Cloakers and lurking rays

D&D has no shortage of monsters whose shtick is to mimic inanimate objects to trick PCs into their trap. The cloaker pretends to be a cloak, the executioner's hood pretends to be what it sounds like, the lurker above pretends to be a ceiling (lurker below is the aquatic variant), the trapper pretends to be a floor, etc. At one point, Pathfinder made the interesting and logical connection between the three species of executioner's hood, lurker above and trapper. Pathfinder posits that they are different life stages of the same "lurking ray" species: juvenile, male, and female respectively.

What struck me as odd is that Pathfinder did not make a similar connection with the cloakers or cuero. Given the vast size disparity between the tiny executioner's hood and the huge lurker above and trapper, the cuero or cloaker makes sense as an intermediate stage. The progression seems quite simple. Young pretend to be small articles of clothing, such as an executioner's hood. Juveniles pretend to be larger pieces of cloth, such as cloaks and tapestries. Adult males blend in with ceilings, while adult females blend in with floors.

Supposedly the cloaker is a creation of the aboleth (who created a lot of races). This may or may not also apply to the other lurking rays. The cuero may be degenerate cloakers, or the ancestral stock mutated by the aboleth in the first place.

Elemental humanoids

So a weird aspect of pre-5e D&D editions is that the taxonomy of elementals was pretty nonsensical. Azer, genies, salamanders, etc were not typed as elementals despite originating from the elemental planes. So this led to a number of attempts by third party products to introduce elemental humanoid equivalents.

The Slayer's Guide to Elementals introduced CR6 "higher elementals," described as "the sentient denizens of the Elemental planes, quite capable of building a civilization hidden from regular planar pathways." These included the gnomides of earth, royal salamanders of fire, sylphs of air, and undines of water.

Monster Encyclopaedia I introduced CR8 "emergents," described as "Not all elemental life is quite so simple – just as oozes and slimes give way to higher forms such as elves or humans, so too do primitive elemental forms lead to the rise of the higher elemental entities called emergents."

Legends & Lairs: Elemental Lore introduced CR11 "noble elementals," described as "Whereas normal elementals are the everyday inhabitants of the elemental planes, noble elementals consider themselves the more civilized elite." They held court on a demiplane at the center of the elemental planes called "Nexus."

Tome of Horrors 4 introduced CR20+ "elemental lords," described as "For every type of elemental, there is a ruler, a huge elemental of massive size and strength that holds dominion over its own kind. These rulers are often worshiped by elementals and some are even worshiped by cults on the Material Plane." The fire lord was Inder, the water lord was Lypso, the earth lord was Onyst, and the air lord was Susir.

In 4e, the elemental type was changed to an "origin" that could apply to beasts, humanoids, and so forth. In 5e, the nuance from 4e was discarded and all these elemental beasts and elemental humanoids are now simply typed as elementals. Hence, the emergent/higher/noble/lord elementals are no longer distinguished from azer, genies, salamanders, etc.

For example, I incorporated the royal salamanders in my post on salamanders. The gnomides could likewise be reflavored as earth-centric azer. I'd like to explore elemental humanoid races in future posts.

Variations on the metal bull aka bovine basilisk

The metal bull "gorgon" is pretty boring as far as monsters go, so despite being a mainstay of D&D it has received almost no attention in monster manual additions. I previously wrote a post discussing ideas for the ecology of metal bulls, so this will be an expansion and revision to that.

My lycanthropes are different

In my setting, diseases are caused by disease spirits a la RuneQuest, OpenQuest, Mythras, etc. Lycanthropy in particular is caused by lycanthropic spirits. Lycanthropic spirits are creations of the beast lords, a subset of the primal spirits venerated by barbarians and druids.

Why exactly lycanthropic spirits exist is a matter of debate, and it’s an excellent opportunity to segue into a discussion of the beast lords themselves. D&D and derivatives like Pathfinder never had particularly sensible theology. They have a bazillion redundant deities, when real religions pair down redundancies. Relevant to the beast lords in particular is that D&D and Pathfinder have a bunch of animal deities distinct from their beast lords. It’s quite common for so and so demon lord to be the patron of beastmen races or lycanthropes or whatever, typically invented ad hoc. It’s common for beast lords and demon lords to overlap in portfolios, which again is needlessly complicated. (There’s no reason a god can’t have multiple types like fey and fiend or whatever, but that’s D&D for you.) I don’t need a bunch of redundant deities like Pazuzu the lord of the skies and the lord of vultures too. I’m not interested in wasting my effort on a bazillion one-note deities. To that end, I’m just going to generically refer to a “beast lord of lycanthropes” or whatever whenever it’s necessary. Gods in my setting are just power sources, and simply don’t exist whenever they aren’t needed. I’m like Eberron in that respect, because it’s simple.

The default types of lycanthropy (and their alignment) in the 5e SRD are werebear (NG), wereboar (NE), wererat (LE), weretiger (N), and werewolf (CE). There can, of course, be an arbitrary number of lycanthrope phenotypes. Werebats, weresharks, entomanthropes, entothropes, quasilycanthropes, monstrous lycanthropes, etc. I'm going to ignore those for right now.

By default in 5e the lycanthropy is passed pathologically and struggles with the alignment of the infected. The monster manual depicts this as a horrible affliction like in horror movies, seemingly ignoring the fact that the werebear and weretiger are not evil. As Keith Baker helpfully points out, lycanthropy is a curse either way. Regardless of alignment, lycanthropy causes profound personality changes. Not only that, but it is very easy to spread epidemics. The RAW lycanthropy seemingly having a mind of its works quite well with my interpretation of lycanthropy as spirit possession. Even the good alignment of the werebear invokes Anne Rice’s The Gift, which interpreted pathologic werewolves as chosen heroes or something.

Each of the five types of lycanthropic spirits is associated with the beast lord of their animal aspect, as well as the generic lord of lycanthropes. Unlike in standard D&D, my setting practices genuine polytheism. Lycanthropic spirits are beholden to the lord of their animal aspect because that’s just how the beast lords roll, as well as to the lord of lycanthropes because that lord provides the whole transformative disease linked to the full moon and harmed by silver yadda yadda. I’m not sure whether the lord of lycanthropes should be the same as the moon god or not, but if the gods are just arbitrary mental shortcuts created by religions invoking a universal power source then it doesn’t matter either way.

5e lycanthropy doesn’t make a distinction for heritable, induced or cursed lycanthropes, but that’s easy enough to change. There aren’t any rules for dealing with infection like there were in 3e, since it wasn’t intended for lycanthropes to be playable, but that can easily be homebrewed.

• Typical lycanthropes are pathologic lycanthropes: they are possessed by a lycanthropic spirit that struggles with their mortal soul unless they embrace the curse or train in controlling it or whatever (in any case, D&D is NOT suited to playing as a lycanthrope due to game balance). They may be infected by another lycanthrope, or inherit it from their parents. They can be cured by exorcising the spirit.
• Heritable lycanthropes don’t have the internal struggle, because the lycanthropic spirit is their soul. As such, they cannot be cured of lycanthropy any more than an elf may be cured of being an elf. In other words, you need to cast a reincarnate spell.
• Lycanthropic spirits can be bound into tokens, such as a ring of Hircine. This allows the wearer to gain the benefits of lycanthropy without actually becoming infected, or for a pathologic lycanthrope to control their condition without relinquishing control to the spirit or training in self-control. (Yes, this references The Elder Scrolls.)
• Lycanthropic spirits may be bound to hosts by a curse, such as the spell curse of lycanthropy. This doesn’t necessarily allow the cursed victim to transmit lycanthropy themselves. If they can transmit their curse, then the curse escape clause probably remains the same for the secondary infections.

In general, the rules for lycanthropy are arbitrary and will depend on what atmosphere you’re going for. A horror setting like Ravenloft emphasized the unpleasantness of lycanthropy (such by requiring you to kill the patient zero of the infection before even attempting a cure, and giving every curse a specific escape clause rather than letting the party breeze through curses with abjuration spells), but that isn’t strictly necessary in a more lighthearted setting. I’m not sure which mine is.

Since D&D doesn’t lend itself to playing as a victim of lycanthropy, you’re probably better off looking for a lycanthrope class on DM’s Guild or something. I found over a dozen results on a casual search.

Anyway, I take a lot of notes from all the 3pp published for lycanthropes over the past two decades. The Complete Guide to Werewolves was particularly useful because it listed a bunch of ways (many taken from folklore and popular culture) for contracting and curing lycanthropy. For example, a character could contract lycanthropy from “picking the lycanthropic flower” or “being born on Christmas.” A character could cure lycanthropy by “being struck on the brow three times with a silver knife” or “eating the heart of the werewolf who infected you.”

So I suppose my lycanthropes aren’t that different aside from the logical beast lord connection and the spirit possession angle. Oh, and I'm taking notes from Eberron's depiction of lycanthropy, too. Lycanthropic spirits aren't mere animal spirits possessing humans, otherwise they'd act like the animal. No, they're spirits of how humans perceive those animals. An evil werewolf spirit will turn its host into the Big Bad Wolf from fairytales. A good werewolf spirit will turn its host into a wolf-loving tree-hugging hippie living in the wilderness. While lycanthropy might have been a natural gift at one time, now it has been corrupted and turns innocents into weapons. As the beast lords themselves are amoral as far as humans are concerned, both good and evil lycanthropes can worship the same beast lord. Or there might be multiple competing lords with the same portfolio. I still need to work through my theology!

Here are some brief example titles for the beast lords relevant to the core lycanthropes. The names come from historical religion, so anyone can use them because public domain.

• Artemis/Luna, lord of the moon, silver and lycanthropes
• Lycaon, lord of wolves
• Moccus, lord of boars (and pig-faced orcs)
• Artaius, lord of bears
• Bast, lord of cats (including tigers)
• Ninkilim, lord of rodents (including rats)

Here are some supplements that might be helpful to read:

• The Complete Guide to Werewolves by Goodman Games
• The Complete Guide to Wererats by Goodman Games
• Slaves of the Moon: The Essential Guide to Lycanthropes by Green Ronin
• Curse of the Moon by Sean K. Reynolds
• Bite Me! Series by Misfit Studios
• Blood of the Moon by Paizo

Antherians and hengeyokai

Antherians add a further wrinkle to the taxonomy of lycanthropes. Rather than being humans who turn into animals, they are intelligent animals who turn into humans. You are probably most familiar with the varieties known as jackalweres and wolfweres. The antherians are niche monsters and receive little to no attention in D&D publications.

Antherians don't have a consistent naming scheme or organization in official D&D publications. The name "antherion" was merely a suggestion provided by the 2e Monstrous Manual, with "therianthrope" used to refer to animal/human shapechangers in general. In Oriental Adventures, they were called “hengeyokai”. The 3rd edition 3pp Tome of Horrors referred to antherians as "therianthropes" and introduced them as a template so you could build your own.

The official "antherions" included coyotlweres, jackalweres, and wolfweres. The official "hengeyokai" included carp, cat, crab, crane, dog, drake, fox, hare, monkey, racoon dog, rat and sparrow. The 3pp "therianthropes" included asswere, foxwere, jackalwere, lionwere, owlwere, and wolfwere. (Some of these listings are redundant. I treat them as synonymous.) Given the definition of an antherian, this taxonomy would logically include creatures like aranea and selkies.

Etymology

The term therianthrope refers to any mythical being that is part-man and part-animal, with or without shapeshifting.

There is no term in English to refer specifically to an animal that assumes human form. So fantasy gaming invented various neologisms.

The neologism antherion appears to be a compound of an- ("not") and therion ("wild animal"). This was only used once, in the Monstrous Manual, and doesn't appear to be linguistically correct.

I independently invented (that is, others invented it first without my knowledge) the neologism antherian. It is a compound of therian, a clipping of therianthrope.

The neologism hengeyokai is a compound of henge ("goblin, ghost; an apparition") and yokai ("supernatural being, monster, apparition, goblin"). It translates to the redundant "changing phantom." It is not a real Japanese word and seems to have been invented wholesale by D&D. In Japanese, shapeshifting creatures like kitsune and tanuki are called bakemono, henge, and obake.

Jackalweres

Jackalweres seem to be the most popular. I guess this might be since they are the first reverse lycanthrope to be published IIRC. (Aside from the aranea?)

Jackalweres have rarely received much backstory. In 4e they were the descendants of a pack of jackals who made a pact with demons to survive a calamity. In 5e they are arbitrarily servants of the lamias.

One homebrew backstory for a jackalwere PC race posits that they are people cursed into the form of animals and unable to resume their original form for more than a brief period. This resembles the folktale about the werewolves of Ossory.

Pathfinder mentions that jackalweres can marry and have children with humans, though we receive no details as to their children’s capabilities. Considering that they are an evil race in D&D, I imagine that their children are also evil jackalweres.

Daily Bestiary offers a few original plot hooks to spice things up. I particularly like the one about an island god having jackalweres as his children, since it reads straight out of mythology.

Folkloric basis

The idea of animals assuming human form is found in folklore across the globe. These shapeshifters were of variable morality: they might prey on humans, or alternately wed humans and have children by their spouses.

In the stories of some American tribes, the horned serpent and thunderbird sometimes assumed human form and married mortal women. Their sons would inherit their power and be demigods to their tribes.

In comparative mythology of Europe, Asia and North America there’s a motif called the “bear’s son cycle.” A hero with a shapeshifting bear in his ancestry inherits the bear’s strength and uses it to help his tribe. Beowulf is a notable example. This appears to be where D&D’s good werebear comes from.

East Asia has a tradition of fox fairies, known in Japanese as kitsune, Korean as gumiho, and Chinese as huli jing. They could be benevolent or malevolent depending on the folktales. Malevolent varieties lured victims to eat them. "Benevolent" varieties played pranks at worst. Sometimes fox fairies married mortals and had children by their spouses.

In the stories of some American tribes, deer would assume the form of lovely women to lure young men to their deaths.

In Africa stories were told of hyenas assuming human form to lure victims.

Japan’s tradition of yokai was particularly detailed in the materials I could access: supposedly any animal that lived for a century would develop supernatural powers including changing shape (this appears to have been adopted from Chinese folktales). These henge often like to play pranks when they aren’t eating people.

A recurring motif in some tales is that the transformation requires a token (as I mentioned in my classification of lycanthropes and therianthropes). Swan maidens require their feathered cloak, selkies require their sealskin, merrow require their red hats, etc. If you steal their token, then you can force the shapechanger to marry you. It isn’t clear which is their “natural” form, but I’ll include them here under the antherians because they seem to live mostly like their animal counterparts.

Predating on humans, romantic attraction, and death by seduction are quite prevalent in these stories. So I guess D&D isn’t unjustified in regurgitating what works for violent encounters.

In my setting

As a world building exercise I am tying various beast and beast-like monsters to the beast lord pantheon. This includes the antherians. What follows is one possible creation myth, heavily drawing from East Asian mythology:

The fantasy world isn't our reality. As such, various supernatural phenomena occur within the natural world. Animals can talk to each other (and sometimes humans) like they do in Aesop's Fables, The Wild Thornberrys, The Jungle Book,  Watership Down, The  Lion King, etc. Animals can live for much longer than in reality, and can gain supernatural powers for living a long time. One such power is the ability to assume a human form to infiltrate human society.

The beast lords hold sway over all animals, and sometimes they will grant vassals the power to change shape in order to act on their behalf in human societies. If the vassals become corrupt, then they can expect to be hunted down by other agents of their patrons. Those who develop this power on their own, however, are free to act as they wish.

The power to change shape opens the new antherian to a whole new world of experience. They can live among humans, marry them, hunt them. All as befits the antherian in question.

If you care, the beast lords who may be relevant here include: (names subject to change)

• Epona, lord of horses (including asses)
• Reynard, lord of foxes
• Anubis, lord of jackals
• Bast, lord of cats (including lions)
• Lilitu, lord of owls
• Arachne, lord of spiders
• Lycaon, lord of wolves

Next up (hopefully):

• How do they relate to beastmen, lycanthropes, et al?
• Treatments for specific animal aspects

Links

• https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Antherion
• https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hengeyokai
• https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?475874-Monster-ENCyclopedia-Jackalwere
• http://themonstersknow.com/jackalwere-tactics/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/3ojf6w/jackalwere/
• http://dailybestiary.blogspot.com/2012/09/jackalwere.html
• https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Jackalwere
• http://jrevell.blogspot.com/2019/03/d-monsters-lycanthropes.html
• https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/7721-jackalwere
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Aranea
• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Hengeyokai
• https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/therianthrope-cr-varies-tohc/
• http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-animal-people.html
• http://greatandsmallrpg.blogspot.com/p/what-is-animal-fantasy.html
• https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/08/and-goat-had-notable-horn-between-his.html
•