D&D Monsters: Couatls

The couatl has its basis in Mesoamerican mythology, although it's arguable how much it resembles the original. The name is apparently inspired by that of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl the "feathered serpent". In reality, coatl simply means "snake" so it doesn't refer to any specific mythic creature taken on its own. Having said that, snakes were important to the Mesoamerican people, and associated with many of their gods. In particular, several of them were feathered, magically merging the features of a flying creature with one that crawls along the ground. They seem to have been regarded as divine beings, which fits with the original 1E description of their habitat and relationship with humans.

---

1E

As originally seen, the couatl has a head and body that closely resemble those of a regular snake. While the presence of an extra set of teeth between the fangs is unusual, in other respects, the arrangement of the teeth resembles those of snakes such as cobras, kraits, and mambas, rather than say, rattlesnakes or boomslangs. While the head is at least partially covered with scales like that of a normal snake, the couatl's body is feathered, with longer feathers along the back and what appear to be softer, downy, ones on the underside. 

D&D Monsters: Beholders

The beholder is, perhaps, the single most iconic monster in D&D - the one creature that, more than any other, says "this is D&D" rather than some other fantasy setting. That's largely due to its unique appearance, which is quite unlike anything that exists in myth or legend or, indeed, in prior fiction. It was created, not by Gygax, but by one of the players in his original campaign, first appearing in a supplement for 0E, and has successfully stood the test of time ever since.

---

1E

As originally shown, the beholder is a spherical creature covered in irregular, flat, "chitinous" plates. A wide mouth occupies much of the lower half and is lined with small pointed teeth similar to those of reptiles. There is a single large lidless eye above the mouth and ten much smaller eyestalks arranged in a ring around the upper surface. The latter are protected by segmented chitin and have also have lidless eyes, similar to those of a snail or slug, although the eyestalks presumably aren't retractable. Severing the eyestalks doesn't otherwise hurt the creature, which suggests that it's able to shut off the blood supply to a severed stalk - or perhaps that it doesn't have blood. There are no other visible features, such as nostrils.

D&D Monsters: Otyughs

There has been some speculation that the otyugh is based on the tentacled monster in the trash compactor in the first Star Wars film (referred to in the tie-in material as a "dianoga"). Certainly, there is a resemblance, especially given that we don't see the whole creature in the film; based on that alone, the rest of the body could look like almost anything. On the other hand, the film only came out a few months before the otyugh made its debut so it would have to have been a very last-minute addition to the 1E Monster Manual if that really was the source. More likely, it's a coincidence, leaving the D&D monster as an original creation.

D&D Monsters: Ropers

The roper is another of the "does what it says on the tin" monsters that are original to D&D. Alongside such creatures as trappers and piercers, it's clearly intended to disguise itself as part of the background and attack unexpectedly but does have a more distinctive look and an unusual method of attack that make it more memorable than they are, with the result that it consistently appears in the core Monster Manual books of each edition.

---

1E

In the original Monster Manual, the roper is a tapered pillar-like creature with a single large eye above the mouth near the top of the body - there are no apparent nostrils or ears. The eye has an odd brow-like structure that seems to partially cover the upper surface; this might be a ridge to protect it from falling debris, since it lives in caves and there's plausibly a lid that flips down from it as well. The mouth opens horizontally and has pointed isodont teeth in both jaws, although it seems unlikely that the creature has much of an internal skeleton to attach them to. The base is limbless and flat to the ground, while a vertically arranged row of three apparent tentacles arise from each side.

D&D Monsters: Mind Flayers

The mind flayer is a creature original to D&D and, like many of Gygax's early creations has a "does what it says on the tin" style name. To my mind, it's one of the better such names - although almost anything is better than, say, "lurker above". The look of the creature is obviously reminiscent of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu, and Gygax stated that it was inspired by the cover of a book by Brian Lumley that does, indeed, feature a being from the Mythos. But, as it happens, it isn't the Big C himself that's on the cover, but a chthonian, a creature with a similar name, to be sure, but actually rather different. Still, it has tentacles and this, seemingly, was enough.

---

1E

The mind flayer goes through relatively little change in physical appearance through the various editions of the game, to the extent that the few changes that are apparent could easily be put down to variations between individuals of the same species. Even the clothing doesn't change much, with the race clearly having a preference for robes and insisting on a skull motif somewhere on their belt. 

D&D Monsters: Umber Hulks

The origins of the D&D umber hulk are not clear. It predates what we'd now call 1E, first appearing in the Greyhawk supplement, and it has been proposed that it may be based on one of the same set of plastic toys that inspired the owlbear, rust monster, and bulette. If so, it doesn't closely resemble any of them, while the other three are very clearly drawn to resemble the toys in the 1E Monster Manual. So, if it's inspired by them at all, the connection is still vague enough that, to all intents and purposes, it's an original creation. Certainly, its signature power is original, doubtless intended to be related to its unusual appearance and, while evil sorcerers might be able to do something similar in myth, the same is not generally true of monsters.

---

1E

As originally depicted, the umber hulk is an upright bipedal creature with a powerful, squat build. Allegedly, it's similar enough in form to a human to be mistaken for one from a distance in dim light; this seems a bit of a stretch even if you can't see the head, but perhaps the writers were thinking of something like ogres. The skin looks smooth, although it could have fine scales or sparse hair for all we know, and lacks such features as a navel or teats. The legs end in three-toed feet, with one toe a small claw to the rear that may help to grip onto rock, and the others broader and supporting the body weight. The hands have four clawed digits, notably including an opposable thumb, although there is no other indication of tool use.

The head is obviously the most distinctive feature. It's broad with a very short neck and has a wide mouth with reptilian-looking teeth and no apparent nostrils. More significantly, a pair of large serrated pincers, reminiscent of the mandibles of a stag beetle, project from the cheek region. These are stated to be used in attack, and could also grab and manipulate food as it is being eaten or bitten, but a pair of shorter curved tusks positioned medially to the pincers have a less obvious function. They don't even come close to meeting in the middle, so they can't be used in chewing or tearing at anything that could easily fit inside the mouth making it hard to see how they would be used. Finally, there are the eyes, with a close-set pair of vertebrate-like eyes in the middle and a pair of compound eyes positioned on the periphery.

Oddly, the umber hulk is not, in fact, umber, but is black over most of its body with a yellowish-grey patch on what's anatomically the venter. Since their heavy build makes it unlikely that they are agile, and they are certainly very slow-moving, the hide must be as tough as plate steel to give them the stated armour rating. They have their own language and are said to be as intelligent as humans. They live in what appear to be small family groups implying some degree of sociality.

---

2E

In 2E, the appearance of the umber hulk changes significantly. They are said to be 'scaly', but the picture only shows a thick hide with sparse hair (there may, of course, be scales too small to see). Heavy plates of what could be either bone or chitin surround the upper arms and thighs and the outer parts of the lower arms - those on the shins may, or may not, wrap around the back. There is an additional armoured nodule over the patella, and what look like scutes on the hands and fingers. Further plates cover the shoulders, the pectorals and the front of the abdomen - the latter including a depression that might contain a navel. All of this goes some way to explaining the armour rating, but it's also worth noting that the unarmoured parts seem to show vertebrate like musculature under the skin, and there's a suggestion of ribs on the chest.

While the hands have the same number of digits as before, including the thumb, the feet have six short claw-like toes that look like they'd have difficulty supporting the creature's weight - the posture shown and the length of the arms suggests that it might knuckle-walk like an ape to compensate for this. The head is entirely enclosed in armour, with the main pincers smoother than before, and the overall shape much narrower. Although we're told the eyes are all small, this only seems to be true of the central pair, which are, in fact, too small to make out whether or not they are vertebrate-like in form. The creature does, however, clearly have antennae, increasing its insectile look.

We're told that they give birth to litters of one to three young and that there is some degree of parental care by the mother. Although they retain humanoid levels of intelligence, there's still no indication of language or even tool use, let alone a meaningful culture.

---

3E

In a break with previous interpretations, the 3E umber hulk is now umber coloured. It is also considerably more insectile, with chitinous plates covering almost the whole of the body. Nonetheless, it still has ape-like hands and, of course, remains four-limbed. The limbs are oddly shaped, with massive lower portions and more spindly upper ones, something that would surely cause something of its size and weight difficulties in moving about. We're back to three toes on the feet, all of them short, clawed, and forward-pointing, giving the feet an appearance between those of the two previous editions.

There is more of a neck now, and the head has shifted to a globular shape with a much narrower mouth that makes it possible to use those inner mandibles to help it tear at and eat flesh. There are still no visible nostrils, although there is a row of what could be spiracles along the sides of the chest. The antennae are more prominent and the arrangement of the eyes is different, with the compound ones below and only slightly lateral to the smaller vertebrate-style ones.

Although it still moves slowly, it is slightly more agile than one might expect and its intelligence rating has increased slightly (although still close to the human average). It turns out to be about as strong as a troll, which makes sense for its stated size if not, perhaps, the lack of upper arm musculature.

---

5E

After the two previous changes in appearance, the umber hulk remains broadly similar in form in 5E. This version has more solidly built thighs and upper arms than that in 3E and there is more of a suggestion of ribs on the chest (these could, however, just be ridging on the chitinous plates). The head, does, however, shift towards a slightly more insectile look. Specifically, the umber hulk has labial palps beneath the jaw, although quite what they would be used for is unclear. Furthermore, the inner set of eyes, while retaining the position they had in 3E appear to be arthropod-style ocelli rather than vertebrate-like, with no evident pupils, eyelids, or canthi. 

The statistics have, as usual in 5E, been toned down a little, but even so, the umber hulk is now stronger than a troll, and only just short of a hill giant. The intelligence has also dropped back to the original level. Umber hulks were specifically stated to be unable to speak in 4E, but they can in both 3E and 5E, regaining their own unique language in the latter. One oddity is that the tunnels they dig are eight feet tall but only five feet in width (2.4x1.5 metres), implying that they walk upright through them - one would have thought that they would just burrow them head-first, which would surely be quicker, but apparently not.

---

The umber hulk then, has become progressively more like an arthropod as its depiction has evolved through the editions. But, even if we ignore the earlier illustrations, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is one, since it obviously has some features that don't fit. The four-limbed form suggests a tetrapod, and the overall shape of the body is closer to that of a tetrapod vertebrate than is that of the similarly quadrupedal rust monster.

The forelimbs, for example, are divided into two segments, separated by an elbow joint. This contrasts with the four segments of an insect leg. The hindlegs are less clearcut, since they appear to have three segments, but its entirely possible that this is a digitigrade stance, with the metacarpals forming the third segment, as they do in dogs and other such animals. The arrangement of the digits on the extremities, especially the hands, support this since, again, they don't look at all insect-like and have same number of phalangeal joints as tetrapod digits. There is also no clear abdomen in the arthropod sense of the word, with the legs being attached at the hips, rather than further forward as they would be on an insect or spider.

If this is correct, it implies that most of the internal anatomy of the umber hulk follows the vertebrate form. There are lungs and a heart in the chest and liver, kidneys, bowels, and so on in the (tetrapod) abdomen. Furthermore, we would expect an internal skeleton that is merely supplemented by the external armour, much as it is in turtles or even armadillos. From a physics perspective, this makes sense, since a pure exoskeleton isn't likely to be strong enough to support the weight of something so large - of course, the existence of ankhegs and the like in the D&D universe implies that things might be different there, so it's not a guarantee.

It's with the head that this most seems to break down. Even so, it's notable that the jaws hinge horizontally, as they do in vertebrates, and each possesses triangular teeth, something they don't do in insects and the like. Countering this we have the "mandibles" which have no clear counterpart in any real-world vertebrate - they don't seem to be tusks like those of an elephant, for example. Thus, while it's plausible that there is a bony skull underneath the chitinous head-sheild, and one complete with a lower jaw, there must also be some major modifications.

Perhaps there are additional bony plates in the angle of the jaw, jointed to the temporal and/or zygomatic bones, to which the mandibles are attached. Or maybe these are dermal plates of chitin, anchored by ligaments to the underlying skull, but not part of its bony structure. There must also be extra openings in the skull, to allow for the additional eyes and for the nerves and blood vessels that supply the antennae.

Attaching compound eyes to a vertebrate nervous system isn't a problem, anatomically speaking, since they still have an optic nerve that works in essentially the same way. Nor is it an issue that the umber hulk must have a double set of optic nerves, since these could attach to the brain close by one another. Similarly, the third, fourth, and sixth cranial nerves, responsible for eye movement, could also be duplicated, although they might not be if the compound eyes, in particular, are fixed in position.

Whether the antennae also need extra nerves depends on what they are for, since this differs in real-world arthropods. The umber hulk has no visible ears, so the antennae could be for sensing sound, in which case, given their position on the head in the 5E illustration, they may simply co-opt the usual auditory nerves. But then again, it has no nostrils, either, so they might smell the air, using, or replacing the usual olfactory nerves. It's also not impossible that the antennae both hear and smell, in which case, either set of cranial nerves is an option.

The lack of nostrils does, however, raise the obvious question of how the creature breathes, especially if we assume that the lungs are in the chest. Here, we must assume a significant departure from the tetrapod norm. There are basically two possibilities, one of which is that the umber hulk breathes only through its mouth, entirely lacking a nasopharynx and nasal cavities, but otherwise with a typical respiratory layout. The other is that the spiracles visible on the sides of the body in 3E and (less clearly) 5E are respiratory openings, implying that multiple short tubes run to the lateral surface of each of the lungs. This would have some advantages, since the animal couldn't choke, and would be rather hard to suffocate by physical action alone - there are a lot of openings to cover up. 

If, on other hand, the spiracles aren't respiratory, they could still be sensory organs, since there's no reason that the organs of smell have to be attached to the breathing apparatus, as we see in a number of non-mammalian animals in the real world.

While the 2E illustration includes what appears to be a navel, implying that umber hulks are mammalian - a primate-like body with an insectile head - the later images do not. Thus, while they are tetrapods, umber hulks probably don't fit within any of the real world tetrapod classes; they're perhaps more like reptiles than anything else, but they aren't literally reptilian. For instance, living underground, in a stable thermal environment with insulating rock above them, they may well be cold-blooded and almost certainly won't have much need to regulate their internal body temperature. 

It seems most likely that umber hulks lay eggs, or perhaps are ovoviviparous, holding the egg inside their body until it hatches but lacking a placenta or umbilical cord. None of the pictures show anything that's identifiable as external genitalia, but, even assuming the pictures aren't of females, they could well retract any intromittent organs into their bodies when not in use, so we can't assume that they aren't there, or in the usual place.

There isn't much to say about the umber hulk's signature power since it's so obviously pure magic. Early descriptions imply that it might have something to do with the odd-looking appearance of the creature confusing those who look at it, but it's not as if it's non-Euclidean, and, anyway, the effect is more potent than mere befuddlement (although less so 5E than it was in 1E). It's also notable that the creature needs to be conscious to use the power, which it is implied is under conscious control and can be turned off if necessary.

D&D Monsters: Devils

In regular English, the term 'devil', when not applied specifically to Satan, is essentially synonymous with 'demon'. Whereas the word 'demon' originally had a more benign meaning, 'devil' has always meant an evil entity, and now typically means one that is specifically part of the Christian mythos even if the general concept exists in other religions, too. 

In D&D, however, devils are distinct from demons, making up the organised legions of Hell rather than being rampaging creatures of malevolent chaos. In 1E, six main types exist, although other common ones have been added since, all fitting within a defined hierarchy where weaker devils can (with difficulty) be promoted to higher ranks at the whims of those even higher up the chain. Compared with the demons, these six standard types are more likely to owe their origins to myth or at least to traditional depictions of such beings, rather than just being odd combinations of animal parts. 

D&D Monsters: Erinyes

The Erinyes originate in Greek myth, where they are goddesses of vengeance cursing kinslayers, oathbreakers, and the like; they are probably better known under their Roman name of "Furies". These original versions appeared as ugly women, typically with snakes entwined in their hair and wrapped around their bodies and limbs. Sometimes they had wings, sometimes not, and later depictions of them are similarly varied.

Some versions of the myths state that there are only three Erinyes, but others are much vaguer about the numbers. Notably, the three named Erinyes stand guard over the City of Dis surrounding the Sixth Circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno. It may be this that inspired their adoption as a type of "devil" in D&D, although they (and Dis) are moved to the Second Circle in the 1E Monster Manual, befitting their status as the weakest of the true devils in that edition. Something of a demotion from their mythic origins, then.

D&D Monsters: Demons

Given that "demon" is such a broad term in real-world mythology and religion, there are inevitably many different interpretations and forms of the beings. They were included in D&D right from 0E, where they are listed simply by a numbered type, increasing in power from one to six. Alternative names are provided in 1E, which become the standard names from 2E onwards. Notably, 2E also tried to pretend that they weren't really "demons", lest that offend anyone religious, and described them instead using the invented word tanar'ri. 3E switched back to "demon" again, explaining that the "tanar'ri" were merely a common subtype; the latter term has largely been deprecated since. 5E restored the numbered type sequence, but only as rarely-used categories of increasing power so that, for example, chasme mosquito-demons are now another example of Type 2 demons, alongside the original hezrou.

D&D Monsters: Vrocks

The word "demon" comes from Ancient Greek where it was used to describe semi-divine beings and generally lacked the negative connotations of the modern word. Early Christians later co-opted it as a term for "servitors of foreign/hostile deities", from which it rapidly morphed into something more explicitly evil. In that sense, it's a common concept in many real-world religions, a generic term not linked to any one in particular and that therefore fits with the typically polytheistic worldview of D&D.

The vrock specifically has no direct antecedents in mythology or in Christian demonology. It may be partly inspired by the demonic Tash from C.S. Lewis's Narnia books, but the resemblance isn't that strong and could be coincidental. Vultures appear in the myths of both African and American cultures since similar birds live on both continents. (In reality, the "vultures" on either side of the Atlantic are not closely related, despite their physical similarity, but this may not be relevant in a fantasy world).

D&D Monsters: Nagas

Nagas originate in Hindu mythology, in which they are magical beings that can take on various snake-like forms. Some appear as literal snakes and, indeed, the scientific name of the main cobra genus is Naja, based on the Sanskrit word for 'cobra'. Similarly, it's no coincidence that the feminine form of this word is "nagini" - although the exact English spelling can vary.

Often capable of shape-shifting, mythic nagas can take on fully human or partially humanoid form, with the latter more usually resembling the yuan-ti and mariliths of D&D than the shape seen in the game (although this is not unknown). Nagas are generally said to be righteous, if not exactly benevolent, and are often set to guard the treasures of the gods, hence at least the 'guardian nagas' of D&D.

D&D Monsters: Sphinxes

The sphinx is a creature of Greek myth, taking the form of a winged lion with a human face. In the original myths, she is, like the minotaur and many others, a unique creature, and appears most famously in the story of Oedipus. 

Confusingly, however, the term was retrospectively employed (possibly by the Greeks themselves) to also refer to the wingless lion-bodied statues of Ancient Egypt. These aren't the same thing as the Greek monster, and it isn't known what the Egyptians actually called them. They were usually, but not always, male and, judging from the statuary, were probably perceived as good and noble beings, unlike the much more hostile Greek creation. 

It seems to be the case that, in D&D, the male or "androsphinx" was based largely on the Egyptian creature (albeit with the addition of wings), while the female or "gynosphinx" has closer links with the Greek version.

D&D Monsters: Lamias

The lamia is another creature originating in Greek myth. However, the route from the myth to the RPG monster is rather more circuitous than is the case for, say, centaurs. In the original myth, Lamia is an otherwise normal woman cursed by the gods into becoming a child-eating cannibal and hence, a sort of bogeyman figure. By Roman times this has shifted to the point that lamias are a race, and the stories around them more closely resemble those of the succubus than of ogres.

At some point between then and medieval times, lamias change again, keeping their powers of sinful seduction, but now becoming part-serpent - physically resembling the yuan-ti of D&D. In fact, outside of gaming, this may remain the most common depiction. In the 17th century, however, an alternative description made them quadrupedal, a scaly hooved creature with a woman's head and breasts. This, combined with a desexualised version of the seduction powers, seems to be the likely inspiration for the game version.

D&D Monsters: Dragon Turtles

Dragon turtles have their origin in Chinese mythology, combining the power of two of the four "auspicious beasts" to bring together their positive aspects. As such, while they don't make direct appearances in mythic tales, they are apparently common in artwork and statuary due to their supposed positive effect on feng shui. Having said which, the version that appears in D&D, while doubtless inspired by the mythic creature, also has features in common with the European conception of dragons and certainly doesn't seem much like a feng shui ornament.

---

1E

The 1E version of the dragon turtle, so far as we can tell, has much in common with traditional depictions of the creature. It has a turtle-like shell and a long, thick neck that probably doesn't retract inside (as, indeed, is the case for some real-world turtles). The head is clearly draconic, with a snout and fangs rather than the toothless beak of turtles, and a pair of feelers or decorative tufts on the forehead. Significantly, it also has the prominent dorsal crest seen on many D&D dragons. We can't see the limbs in the illustration, but we're told that they have claws - something true of most real-world turtles although, as it happens, not of the deep sea sort, which have flippers.

D&D Monsters: Metallic Dragons

In European myth, dragons are almost universally regarded as evil - rapacious monsters that lay waste to the countryside, have to be slain by heroic knights and, in many cases, essentially breathe hellfire. They are, sometimes literally, diabolic creatures. The same is not necessarily true in other cultures, such as that of China, where dragons may not necessarily be easy to parlay with or recruit as allies, but aren't fundamentally hostile, either.

In D&D, the good counterparts to the evil chromatic dragons are, of course, the metallic ones. Indeed, they are among a relatively small number of 'good monsters' to make it consistently through into the core books of later editions. Up until 5E, they are portrayed as rarer, but individually more powerful than, the chromatic dragons. They are perhaps even rarer in games than they are usually described as being in the universe (in two campaigns of Critical Role, the PCs have so far encountered at least seven chromatic dragons, and only one metallic). Doubtless, this is because they are less useful in a typical game if you're not going to fight them - and they're too powerful to be regular allies.

D&D Monsters: Blue Dragons

A considerable number of mythological deities are said to throw thunderbolts - Zeus and Thor are merely the most familiar of these to Europeans, with examples known from many other cultures. Actual mythic creatures that throw lightning, however, are much less common, although Chinese dragons are at least associated with thunder and storms. In D&D, however, it seems an obvious attack mode once we've dealt with fire and ice, and, naturally enough, it's associated with the dragon that's the colour of the sky.

---

1E

The original picture of the blue dragon shows an animal with a moderately long and heavy snout, large eyes, and elongated canine teeth. More distinctive features include the fact that the dorsal frill of the green and black dragons is here replaced with a series of large triangular plates, which may be projections from the vertebrae, but could be separate structures similar to those on a Stegosaurus. The latter possibility is supported by the existence of three similar plates on the forehead. In front of these, there is a row of four  bony spikes, one of which is enlarged to form a narrow nasal horn. As usual, this doesn't look like it would be of much use in combat, at least compared to the teeth and claws, so it might be a display structure.

D&D Monsters: White Dragons

While witches, evil sorcerers, and the like, may create freezing cold storms, beings that attack by virtue of simply being very cold are not common in myth, or indeed, in early fantasy literature. Tolkien mentions "cold drakes", but these are simply dragons that don't breathe fire, rather than being any supernaturally low temperature. Nonetheless, when Gygax was looking around for different attacks for the five basic chromatic dragons, intense cold seems (at least in retrospect) an obvious fit. Perhaps as a counterpoint to the fiery dragons being the most powerful these, the white dragons, became the weakest.

---

1E

White dragons are not only the weakest of the chromatic dragons but the weakest of dragons overall. A step down from the black dragons, while they do have much thicker hides and stronger jaws, 1E white dragons have about the same ability to sustain physical injury as a tiger. In fact, their claws do less damage than a tiger's do, so it's possible that their legs are actually less muscular (or the claws are blunter, or smaller, which seems unlikely).

D&D Monsters: Red Dragons

Many medieval descriptions of dragons make no mention of them breathing fire, and this does not seem to be part of the original myths of the creatures. Nonetheless, the idea that dragons breathe flame does seem to have originated in medieval Europe, and is now de rigueur in fantasy depictions. It probably arose because of the association of evil dragons with hellfire, and the general idea of fire-breathing creatures certainly predates it (Leviathan breathes fire in The Book of Job, for example). 

In D&D, of course, it was originally decided that the five types of chromatic dragon should be distinguished by each having a unique attack, so that green dragons breathe poison, black dragons acid, and so on. Naturally, the most powerful of all the chromatic dragons was going to be the one that breathed fire, fitting the legends on which the broader idea is based.

D&D Monsters: Green Dragons

Medieval descriptions of dragons imply that they look rather like snakes, but they were said not to be venomous and, since they weren't always fire-breathing either, were often just very very strong. Some medieval bestiaries, for instance, describe dragons killing elephants by wrapping them up in their tail and squeezing like a constrictor. The poisonous counterpart of the dragon in medieval lore is the basilisk - which is basically just an incredibly deadly snake, much like the version in The Philosopher's Stone.

In D&D, the basilisk is quite a different creature, and very far from being legless. While the association of poison with serpentine beings make sense, it's not common in depictions of dragons. The D&D idea of certain dragons belching poisonous gas instead of something flammable is likely an original one - something added so that each of the five chromatic dragons had a unique attack mode. And in this case, of course, that's the green dragon, the mid-point in the five-point scale of increasing chromatic dragon power.

D&D Monsters: Black Dragons

It's hard to argue with the notion that the single most iconic monster in fantasy fiction is the dragon. Dragons exist in some of the oldest myths known and are found across many different cultures. Having said which, this only holds true for a sufficiently broad definition of the word, since there isn't really much in common between, say, European and Chinese dragons beyond the fact that they both have snake-like bodies with legs. Even that is less true today; most modern depictions of western dragons aren't as serpentine as those drawn in the Middle Ages usually were.

Given that they're right there in the name of the game, dragons are obviously fairly key to D&D. In the 1st edition, they receive more detailed options than other monsters, having eight age categories and three size classes, and a suite of special abilities right from the beginning. Furthermore, there are no less than ten different kinds of true dragon, divided evenly between the good 'metallic' and the evil 'chromatic' species.