Thursday, July 4, 2019

the walking dead

Like many monsters in the MM, the walking dead (skeletons, zombies, crawling hands, and similar lower tier undead) have some interesting aspects and some nonsensical aspects.

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

otyugh-kin

The otyugh is a typical example of the random monster encounters D&D is famed for. The monster itself is a living garbage disposal which, being neutral, will only attempt to eat the party incidentally; yet they are smart enough to serve as questionable allies. The oytugh comes in several different varieties beyond the typical garbage disposal.

Pantheons and syncretism, old gods and new

D&D doesn't have a coherent theology. Fantasy gaming quickly runs into the problem of inventing new objects of worship on the fly, resulting in an incoherent theology that is devoid of the syncretism that simplifies real religions. Since the overwhelming majority of campaigns don't involve divine intervention, the precise nature of the gods isn't important.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

the Ogdoad and Protean

The ogdoads and proteans are exemplars of chaos resembling frogs and snakes, respectively.

Lichame and haugbúi

In prior posts I discussed the etymology of monster names lich and wight as well as how they are misused by fantasy gaming. This post will be an addendum to that.

The word wight originates from Norse and meant various things including "supernatural being" and "wretch." Tolkien used it in the compound "barrow-wight" (translating to "grave-men") to refer to some malevolent ghosts haunting a burial mound. In Norse mythology, such undead tied to their burial mounds were referred to as haugbúi (“mound-dweller”). Other types of undead included draugr (“revenant”) and aptrgangr (“again-walker”).

The word haugbúi is a compound of the accusative singular of haugr (“burial mound”) plus third-person singular present subjunctive of búa (“to reside”). Literally, “(s/he) that resides (in/at) the burial mound.” A hypothetical English cognate would be the compound howe-bound that I just invented as of this writing.

In German translations of elf-games, liches are referred to as Leichnam because the cognate Leiche is already the German word for "corpse." Leichnam is a respectful way of referring to corpses. (I suspect the respectfulness originates from the tradition of shrouding both holy objects and corpses.) The English cognate is lichame, equivalent to lich (“corpse”) + hame (“covering”). This fits oddly well with phylactery, originally meaning “reliquary, safeguard.”

As something of a grammar nazi, I dislike the misuse of lich and wight to refer to specific undead monsters. So I would prefer to refer to the monsters as, for example, lichame “no life king” (a la Dungeon Seeker manga) and draugr “grave-man” or “crypt horror”. This would free up the words lich and wight to be used in broader contexts as with their dictionary definitions.

ADDENDUM 7/9/2019: The German translation of D&D renders “wight” as Gruftschrecken, from Gruft + Schrecken meaning “crypt horror.” The German translation of Tolkien renders “barrow-wight” as Grabunhold, from Grab + Unhold meaning “grave monster/fiend.”

Monday, July 1, 2019

Basilisk and cockatrice lore

In a previous post I gave a brief ecology of the basilisk and cockatrice, explaining their origins, elemental variants and idiosyncrasies. In this post I will go into a more detailed listing of various basilisk and cockatrice lore and thoughts that occurred to me.

Eyeball monsters

The beholder and gauth are considered product identity by Wizards of the Coast, so it is not permitted for third party products to refer to them. However, there is no shortage of eyeball monsters released under the OGL.

For example:
In future posts I should like to explore the ecology and nature of such eyeball monsters further. Consider this a first part of hopefully a series.